Germany's Education Minister, Annette Schawann, has proposed that the EU Member States should introduce a common European history book. It would be used by schools in all the Member States. The aim is reported to be to strengthen pupils' European identity. Can the Presidency explain why it is supporting the proposal to produce a common European history book? Is it, in any case, among the duties of politicians to have views on what should appear in Member States' history books, for example with regard to sensitive historical issues on which differences of opinion exist between Member States, such as colonialism? Ought not Member States to decide independently which textbooks they wish to use in their respective education systems?

At the unofficial Council meeting of the Ministers for Education in early March, the Minister representing the Presidency put forward the idea of a common history textbook for use in all Member States. Does the Presidency intend to raise this matter again, and what kind of plans does it have as regards compilation of the standard material and the timetable for the project?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to observe that the issue raised was not discussed at any formal meeting of the Council and is not on any of the provisional agendas for further meetings currently available.

Does the Council accept that there is a link between rising world prices of vegetable oils and the growing demand for biofuels within the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament’s April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

I shall not comment on the suggestion by the Honourable Member that a link exists between world prices of vegetable oils and the growing demand for biofuels in Europe, as such questions are a matter for the Commission.

I shall restrict myself in this answer to drawing your attention to some important facts concerning energy. At its last meeting, the European Council paved the way for a decisive change by adopting a comprehensive energy action plan laying the foundations for a European energy policy.

In particular, this action plan sets the binding objective of increasing the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption to 10% by 2020. However, it states explicitly that there might be competition between the different possible ways of using the raw materials affected by this policy. The European Council has therefore called on the Commission to propose flanking measures this year to ensure sustainable production and use of bioenergy and to avoid conflicts between different uses of biomass.

It will be some time before all this is decided on and implemented; however, I believe that account will be taken of the honourable Member’s apparent concerns.

By making continued activity at VW Forest conditional on greater flexibility and an increase in hours of work without an increase in pay, WW Forest management has blackmailed the workforce over employment. The workers only had the choice of accepting or seeing the factory close. In its resolution of 14 March 2006 on relocation in the context of regional development, the European Parliament called for measures to be contemplated against this type of employment blackmail, which might be termed ‘reverse’ relocation as it results in poorer working conditions without relocation of the company's activities.

Can the Council say what measures it is envisaging to prevent reverse relocations that lead to a deterioration in working conditions without relocation of the company's activities?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council could consider action in this area only in response to a proposal to this effect submitted by the Commission. No such proposal has as yet been made.

Afghanistan currently accounts for an estimated 90% of the world's opium trade, and there are fears that 2007 will be a record year for production, much of which will find its way onto Europe's streets as heroin.

As eradication of the crop by any method will not be welcomed by the local people, has the Council discussed buying the entire crop direct from the farmers so as to control the legitimate medical uses of the drug and in effect, remove the Taliban from the equation ?

In addition what discussions has the Council had with neighbouring EU states that are on the supply route from Afghanistan?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council takes the problems associated with the cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan very seriously. As it stated in its conclusions of 5 March 2007, it recognises the significant and detrimental impact that production of and trafficking in drugs are having upon the stability and security of Afghanistan and the surrounding region as well as internationally, including on the EU Member States themselves.

In May 2006 the Council approved an Action Oriented Paper on 'Increasing EU support for combating drug production in and trafficking from Afghanistan, including transit routes' (doc. 9370/1/06), which comprises a consolidated framework for EU policy in support of Afghanistan and its neighbours.

In its conclusions of May 2007, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the Government of Afghanistan in its efforts to tackle drugs; it also called on Member States to continue their support, in particular through the rapid implementation of the recommendations in the EU's Action-Oriented Paper.

The Council has not debated whether farmers' crops should be bought up.

It conducts a regular dialogue on drugs issues with the Russian Federation, which is an important partner in efforts to control drugs, particularly those from Afghanistan. In addition, a conference of experts on drugs and drug addiction was held in Warsaw from12 to 14 November 2006, at which practical measures to promote cooperation between the two partners were debated (for conclusions, see doc. 16379/06). The conclusions agreed at the conference are currently being implemented. The issue of how drugs are smuggled out of Afghanistan was the main subject of the Second Ministerial Conference on drug trafficking routes from Afghanistan ('Paris 2 – Moscow 1'), further to the Paris Pact, from 26 to 28 June 2006 in Moscow, at which the Moscow Declaration and Recommendations were adopted. In addition, the drugs issue regularly figures on the agenda for meetings of the EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) on Freedom, Security and Justice.

The German Presidency also intends to hold a troika meeting with Western Balkan countries concerning drugs issues.

Are infringement of the right of property ownership in an EU Member State and compliance with the relevant court judgements matters of concern to the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to inform the honourable Member that Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I) was adopted by it on 22 December 2000.

Apart from certain precisely delineated legal areas, the scope of this Regulation covers the essentials of civil and commercial law. The Regulation includes rules of jurisdiction relating specifically to object rights in rem in immovable property and to the rental or leasing of immoveable property. Article 22(1) lays down the rules of jurisdiction on the basis of which a person may bring a case before a court in a Member State.

For the purpose of the free circulation of judgments, the rulings handed down in a Member State bound by this Regulation shall be recognised and enforced in another Member State bound by the Regulation subject to rules clearly set out in it. Property law is a matter for the Member States’ national competence.

Furthermore, the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations contains provisions on the determination of the law applicable in cases with a demonstrable connection to the law of various states. Article 4(3), in particular, stipulates which law shall be applicable where the contract relates to an object right in rem in a plot of land or a right to the use of one.

With this in mind, the Council would advise the honourable Member that work is being done on the communitarisation of this Convention.

Declaration 38 of the Amsterdam Treaty acknowledges the major contribution made by the voluntary sector and endeavours to encourage the European dimension thereof. The Rotary and Lions international associations are recognised by the UN, where they have permanent representation; they are non-profit-making bodies supported by funds contributed by their members and they operate throughout the world, supplementing other institutions' activities. In Italy's Imperia province the local office of the tax inspectorate has acquired lists of Rotary members for purposes possibly connected with the tax register.

Is the Council thinking of examining the reasons which lie behind this initiative and of taking appropriate action in order to ensure not only that such ventures are nipped in the bud but also that more explicit and constructive recognition of voluntary associations in accordance with the Amsterdam Treaty Declaration is introduced within the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The matters to which the honourable Member refers do not fall within the Council’s remit.

According to latest UN estimates, the world's population will increase by 2.5 billion by 2050, bringing the overall number to 9.2 billion inhabitants. The greatest population increase is expected to occur in the poorer countries, and in some cases the population will double or even triple, for instance in Afghanistan, the Congo, Uganda and Nigeria. The picture is quite different in the developed countries. By 2050 women are expected to have an average of 2.05 children compared to 2.75 at present. At the same time, average life expectancy will increase and the number of elderly people will increase very rapidly. Scientists point out that the greatest problem will be to feed the larger population in the developing countries, where 2 billion people are already undernourished and 854 million suffer from hunger.

In view of the above, will the Council say what development policy the EU intends to adopt in order to combat illegal immigration flows from the developing countries and help tackle poverty and epidemics in those countries?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Where the further development of the EU’s immigration policy (Global Approach to Migration) is concerned, in particular the more intensive dialogue with third countries, the Council has been extremely active over the past year.

At the Conference of European and African Ministers on Migration and Development, which was held on 10/11 July 2006 in Rabat, and focused on West, Central and North Africa, the Rabat Declaration on a partnership between Europe and Africa on Migration and Development, and also an action plan with detailed measures and recommendation for cooperation in the field of migration, were adopted. Measures to combat illegal migration feature prominently in both of them.

The Conference of European and African Ministers on Migration and Development held on 22/23 November 2006 in Tripoli, which focused on the continent of Africa as a whole, saw the adoption of a joint African and EU declaration on migration and development, and also of the Ouagadougou action plan for combating the trafficking of human beings, in particular the trade in women and children.

The EU’s agenda for migration and development was set out in the conclusion of the meeting of the European Council in December 2006. The Heads of State or Government saw it as important that the Union’s policy in this area, which is of ever-increasing importance, should be made comprehensive and given coherent form in order to do justice to the issue’s increasing importance in foreign relations. The European Union’s intention is that the combination of measures to combat illegal immigration with others to make use of the potential benefits of legal migration and to address causes should have the effect of maximising the benefits of migration and reducing to a minimum its drawbacks. The following specific courses of action were decided upon:

Performance of the joint undertakings agreed on at the Rabat and Tripoli conferences;

More intensive dialogue with Africa on migration issues by sending specific EU missions to key African countries over the coming years;

The Member States and the Commission should integrate migration and development issues in their aid measures and the planning of programmes (and also in the country-specific strategy papers), enhance coordination among themselves and extend the joint planning of programmes.

Country-specific cooperation platforms are to be set up for migration and development.

Preparation of the Global Forum on International Migration and Development (to be held between 9 and 11 July in Brussels).

Improvement of practical cooperation with third countries in relation to returns and the speeding-up of negotiations on EC return agreements with third countries.

Development of measures to combat the smuggling of immigrants and the trafficking in human beings, especially for the protection of women and children.

Exploration of ways and means whereby circular and temporary migration between the EU and third states might be alleviated on the basis of proposals to be submitted by the Commission by June 2007.

Application of the Global Approach to Migration to the eastern and southern neighbouring regions of the European Union on the basis of proposals to be submitted by the Commission by June 2007.

In addition to that, deeper cooperation on migration issues will be among the main topics of the discussion that we are currently having with our African partners with a view to the adoption of a new joint strategy for the EU and Africa at the Lisbon Summit in November 2007. We are convinced that the European Parliament’s contribution to this process will be an extremely valuable one.

The abolition of poverty in developing countries, and hence the addressing of one of the causes of flight and illegal migration is not a matter for the Council to deal with on its own. On 20 December 2005, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission signed the European Consensus on Development, which states that the pre-eminent and all-embracing goal of EU development cooperation is the removal of poverty by means of sustainable development, together with the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals. The implementation of the EU Consensus on Development and the new financial instrument for development cooperation, together with the 10th European Development Fund and the successful conclusion of the ongoing negotiations on economic partnership agreements, will certainly help achieve those Goals, and it should be emphasised that the EU has agreed that it should give more and better aid. One objective set out under the European Development Consensus is that the Member States should strive to increase their development aid by 0.7% of gross national income by 2015 and set themselves the collective intermediate goal of an increase of 0.56% by 2010.

Finally, as regards the war on epidemics in developing countries and, in particular, against what are known as the diseases of poverty (HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis), the long-term estimates are optimistic in so far as the number of deaths caused by these three diseases is expected to decrease on the assumption that the current efforts and trends in the fight against them are continued. The Council is firmly determined to place itself in the advance guard where the fight against AIDS/HIV, tuberculosis and malaria is concerned, and to redouble its efforts in the spheres of prevention, care, treatment and research.

I was deeply shocked to hear a radio news broadcast in which Hans Blix, the person responsible for the investigations in Iraq into the possession of weapons of mass destruction, declared that his report had been falsified by an authority of a Member State, with the question marks being replaced by exclamation marks.

Can the Council explain what measures it has taken to punish this totally unacceptable act of deception on the part of a Member State which has caused and is still causing so many problems in our world?

Can the Council state whether it has at least taken the initiative of conducting a close scrutiny of all the information produced by the relevant authorities of that Member State?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Not only is the Council unable to confirm the reports to which the honourable Member refers, but it is also not the Council’s practice to comment on statements made by individuals to the press.

As for the second issue, the honourable Member is surely aware that the Treaty contains no provisions that would allow the Council to examine all the information submitted by the authorities of a Member State.

Today, 14 March 2007, the Swedish journalist Dawit Isaak has been in prison in Eritrea for 2000 days. He has never been brought to trial, and a number of other journalists have been murdered. The situation in Eritrea is very serious. The EU gives aid to Eritrea under the Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme (for the period 2002-2007). Altogether, € 96.8 m has been allocated to aid to Eritrea through the European Development Fund (EDF 9).

Does the Council really consider it appropriate that the EU should give aid to a State which treats its own citizens and those of other countries in the way in which Dawit Isaak is being treated?

Ought not the EU to suspend payment of this aid until Eritrea displays respect for freedom of speech and human rights?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council is fully aware of the critical state of human rights in Eritrea, evidence of which is furnished, inter alia, by the detention, since September 2001, of Dawit Isaak and of other journalists and politicians. On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of their seizure, then, the EU addressed an urgent appeal to the Eritrean Government to either have the detainees charged and sent to face a fair and public trial with proper legal representation or to release them unconditionally. The EU also urged the government of the state of Eritrea in strong terms to provide detailed information as to where and under what conditions the detainees are being held, and as to their state of health, and EU representatives in Asmara have also approached the Eritrean authorities in relation to these matters.

The main objectives of the aid provided by the Commission to Eritrea in accordance with the national strategy paper and indicative programme for priorities for cooperation in the 2002-2007 period are the reduction of poverty in the country and the promotion of its economic and social development; this includes humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of social and transport infrastructures, support for the demobilisation and reintegration of the population groups involved in war, and support in the development of long-term strategies in the fields of food safety, transport and education.

Suspension of EC aid for Eritrea would necessitate the application of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, according to which this cannot happen until consultations between the parties have been held. No proposal has been made to the Council that this be done.

The delay to the Galileo project is damaging to everybody in the Union, including industry and the public, and is therefore beneficial to Europe's competitors.

How will the Council break the deadlock, urgently?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

Galileo is a major European advanced technology project, and any further delay would therefore be unacceptable. In February, prompted by the faltering concession negotiations, the Presidency, represented by the Federal Minister for Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs, Wolfgang Tiefensee, held talks in person with both the Commission and all the partners in the consortium, at which it emerged that the negotiations had been stalled since at least the beginning of the year. The eight companies involved have still not implemented their internal arrangements laid down in December 2005 regarding the key organisational aspects and have so far been unable to agree on a common approach.

That being the case, the Council decided at its meeting of 22 March 2007 to stress in no uncertain terms that the present situation can no longer be tolerated. In its conclusions it called on the bidding consortium to implement the December 2005 agreement and restart the negotiations with the GNSS Supervisory Authority no later than 10 May 2007. It wished to see substantial progress – and hence clear prospects for a successful conclusion to the negotiations – by the time of its meeting in June. The Commission was accordingly asked to report to the Council in June on the progress of the negotiations and, in addition, to draw up alternative implementation scenarios for the Galileo project so as to enable the Council, in June, to take a decision on the next stages of the project in full knowledge of the current state of play.

Furthermore, regarding the other outstanding project implementation matters, the Council has asked the Commission to submit proposals to its June meeting with a view to securing the long-term public financial commitments entailed in the project and making EGNOS operational as soon as possible.

Major changes in Egypt's Constitution are impending, with the aim of terminating the state of emergency which has already been in force for 26 years. However, the opposition and human rights groups are warning that the new Constitution will result in human rights violations. Members of the Egyptian opposition have protested outside Parliament in Cairo about President Mubarak's 'constitutional coup'. This week, the President intends to press through 34 amendments to the Constitution. These measures will be conducive to electoral fraud and increase the President's power. The amendments will turn Egypt into a constitutional police state. The President will then be able to have those who are suspected of 'any terrorist crime' tried by military tribunals, against whose judgment there will be no appeal. Moreover, religious parties will be banned and judicial monitoring of elections will be abolished.

What is the Council's view of the present developments in Egypt? What effect will these reforms in Egypt have on relations between the EU and Egypt? What is the Council's view of the abolition of religious parties? Is this a good way of combating extremism or an undemocratic, dictatorial strategy?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The EU has been actively following the process of constitutional reform in Egypt, which was concluded on 26 March 2007 with a referendum.

On 3 April 2007, the presidency, on behalf of the European Union, issued a statement on constitutional reform in Egypt, in which the EU noted that the referendum had been held only a few days after the parliament had agreed to it, so that little time was available for public debate.

The statement urged further reforms aimed at enhancing public involvement in the political process and went on to note that the EU will follow with great attention the developments in connection with the planned new anti-terrorism law and expects any new legislation to be in line with international standards.

The statement concluded by stressing that the priorities common to the EU and Egypt, as set out in the recently adopted EU/Egypt action plan, were at the heart of relations between the two and that the EU was determined to work with Egypt toward the end of their complete achievement; it also reiterated the EU’s readiness to help the reform process in Egypt by means of support and technical aid in accordance with the provisions of the action plan.

On 26 October 2006, the Nicaraguan Parliament approved an amendment to Article 165 of the Criminal Code, thereby tightening up the law on abortion. In response, Germany's Minister for Development Cooperation, Mrs Wieczorek-Zeul, among other people, stated that this would have immediate serious repercussions on development cooperation. An official in the Council's Secretariat, Mr Karl Buck, threatened the Nicaraguan Ambassador to the EU with isolation of his country in the international community.

On what legal basis did Mr Buck threaten the Nicaraguan Ambassador on account of his country's criminal law, speaking on behalf of the Council and the EU Member States? To what extent are threats by such an official binding on the European Institutions, the EU Member States and third countries?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council has received no complaint from the Nicaraguan authorities in respect of any alleged threats made by an official of the Council Secretariat. I should like to point out that the officials of the Council Secretariat are bound by the EU’s Staff Regulations to refrain from any action or conduct that might be discreditable to their office.

Discussions at Council level revealed concerns about the law in question. I would advise you, however, that the Council has no position on the subject of abortion.

Preparations are currently being made in Russia for the reopening of the trial against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, who were convicted of tax evasion in 2005. Under Russian law, those convicted have the right to apply for remission of the sentence provided they have served half of it and have behaved in an exemplary fashion. This means there is hope that, when the decision is taken this autumn, shortly before the Russian parliamentary and presidential elections, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev could be freed.

The fact that new charges are, at this very moment, being made against the two men gives rise to reasonable suspicions that the trial, which has been politicised from the very beginning, could become nothing but a show. Does the EU Council Presidency believe that Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev will be guaranteed a fair and non-political trial? Has it been made clear to the Russian Federation that any deviation from the principles of the rule of law or violation of human rights will inevitably affect its relations with the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council wishes to thank the honourable Member for his questions. It unreservedly shares his concern about the most recent developments in relation to the rule of law and the restrictions placed on civil society activities in Russia. The Council takes the view that the strategic partnership with Russia must be founded on common values, in particular on those to the respect for which Russia has committed itself as a member of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE.

In its dealings with Russia, the Council repeatedly stresses that greater stability and prosperity in Russia are dependent on the presence of a living democracy at all levels of the Russian Federation, on the application of the rule of law, an independent judiciary and unconditional respect for human rights, free and independent media and an active civil society.

The Council is monitoring with attention developments in these areas and regularly expresses its concerns in the course of the political dialogue with Russia, particularly at the human rights consultations that have been held twice every year since March 2005.

A law jointly introduced by the President and Government of Poland recently came into force, under which 700 000 citizens in various professions, such as local government representatives, academics, teachers, headmasters, politicians, diplomats, lawyers, journalists, etc., born before 1 August 1972, are required to submit statements of their 'beliefs' to the 'National Memory Institute' for checking and 'to reveal any cooperation with the secret services' during the period in which the country was under socialist government. Anyone judged 'guilty' by this Institute faces dismissal from his/her job and will be barred from holding a public post or office for a period of ten years.

What is the Council's position on this undemocratic piece of legislation which is being implemented by one of its Member States? Is the Council in agreement with these legislative measures, which are a flagrant violation of freedom of thought and expression and introduce the principle of punishment for citizens for their political and ideological views?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Since this question does not fall within the Council’s remit, the Council has not discussed it.

It does, however, point out that the promotion of human rights is among the European Union’s priorities, and that the obligation upon EU Member States to respect fundamental rights is also laid down in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since EU Member States are also members of the Council of Europe, they are also subject to the obligations resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights, by adding to the EU’s monitoring and information capacities, helps to guarantee the unrestricted respect for fundamental rights.

Recently in Frankfurt, a court refused to hear the case of a German national of Moroccan origin living in Germany who was suing her Moroccan husband for divorce on grounds of domestic violence (threat to her life). The judge refused to hear the case for possible divorce within a period of less than one year pursuant to Article 1565 of the Civil Code. The judge stated that since the two parties were of Moroccan origin, the relevant Article could not be applied as the behaviour of the husband was not contrary to the practice of the Koran.

What is the Council's view of such a violation of the fundamental rights of a national of a Member State of the EU and the failure to apply and provide justice pursuant to the relevant national legislation and the Community acquis? The last Annual Report on Immigration and Integration⁽¹⁾ makes no reference to the subject of domestic violence, crimes of honour, forced marriages and other discrimination faced by immigrant women.

Will the Council propose that such matters be examined and included in the next annual report? Has the Council considered the question of the correct application of the Community acquis to immigrants living in the EU?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is the function of the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, to monitor the application of Community law by the Member States. Moreover, it is not for the Council to comment on the rulings handed down by a Member State’s justice system.

The promotion of human rights is, however, among the European Union’s priorities, and the obligation incumbent on EU Member States to respect fundamental rights is also enshrined in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. EU Member States are, at the same time, also members of the Council of Europe, and are, as such, bound by the obligations resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights, by adding to the EU’s monitoring and information capacities, helps to guarantee the unrestricted respect for fundamental rights.

In the light of the upcoming Bologna Ministerial Conference in May 2007 about the follow-up to the Bologna process, I would like to know if there is a joint position on the issue of the exclusion of Northern Cypriot universities from the Bologna Process.

My question is whether the Council's position, that the isolation of Northern Cyprus must end, also applies to young students in universities wishing to be part of the Bologna Process as well as European exchange programmes and educational programmes including Erasmus and Socrates?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Concerning the Bologna Process, the Council wishes first courteously to inform the honourable Member that this process was not set in motion by the EU, but is an initiative undertaken jointly by 45 states throughout Europe. That being so, it lies outwith the formal decision-making framework of the European Community, and it is therefore not for the Council to put forward common positions of the kind referred to.

Turning to the subject of participation in EU exchange and educational programmes, the Council wishes to emphasise that Turkish Cypriots are regarded as citizens of the European Union and are therefore entitled to participate in such programmes without any restriction being placed upon them. As the honourable Member ought to be aware, though, the Republic of Cyprus does not, in practice, recognise the universities in those parts of the island over which the government does not exercise any actual control, the consequence of which is that the students matriculated at these institutions were not able to participate in these programmes. The Council, working together with the Commission and with the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, will continue to examine possible solutions to this problem.

The Council would additionally observe that Regulation 389/2006/EC of 27 February 2006 established a Community scholarship programme enabling students in higher education and their teachers to study for the period of a year at a university in the EU. Although the numbers participating in this programme do not equal the numbers of participants in such programmes as Erasmus, the scholarship programme does make it possible for Turkish Cypriots to study at a university in the EU.

Motorway building is of particular importance to the development of communications links and economic growth in eastern European countries. The building of water reservoirs is justified by the climate changes that are under way, which call for much-needed water resources to be collected and protection to be provided against flooding; reservoirs can also be used for clean, environment-friendly energy production.

The building of motorways, which, from a long-term viewpoint, is an environment-friendly exercise of essential importance to society and the economy, leads to lower fuel consumption, greater safety and better environmental conditions in cities, towns and villages through which roads currently run. Despite this, it is a target for attacks by people who are not directly affected by the current state of affairs, and protests take place only once a start has already been made on implementing such projects.

How does the Council view the possibilities of routing and building future road corridors while avoiding protests by ecologists based on the exploitation of existing legal provisions?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Where a strategic environmental assessment with public participation is to be carried out in order to determine the route of corridors belonging to the Trans-European Networks, this serves, to a considerable extent, to create public acceptance.

However, the honourable Member’s questions relating to the building of motorways and water reservoirs fall within the remit of individual Member States, and so it is not for the Council to comment on them.

The Berlin Declaration was not signed by the leaders of the EU Member States, but only by the head of the government of the country holding the EU Presidency, something which has sparked off much controversy.

Will this practice, which has given rise to misgivings and strong reactions, continue in the future?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Berlin Declaration, which is a political document, was signed on behalf of the three European Union institutions – the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament – specifically by Federal Chancellor Merkel on behalf of the Council, on behalf of the Commission by Mr Barroso, its President, and on behalf of the Parliament by its President Mr Poettering.

This unique act was justified by the celebrations on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome and does not give cause for doubt concerning those procedures for decision and ratification that are prescribed by international and Community law.

Can the European Council make a statement outlining the key political issues that will be discussed at the forthcoming EU-US Summit, and what does the European Council expect to be achieved at this political summit?

(DE) This answer, which has been drawn up by the Presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor its Members, was not given orally at Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The conditions surrounding the forthcoming EU-US summit on 30 April 2007 in Washington are favourable - relations between the EU and the US are in good shape. There is the political will on both sides to engage constructively and cooperate closely.

The forthcoming EU-US summit has the following objectives:

Firstly, a joint initiative to strengthen transatlantic commerce is to be launched. The core of the initiative is a mutual political commitment to deepen cooperation with a view to achieving regulatory convergence and a further intensification of economic links.

Secondly, cooperation is to be intensified on climate protection and energy policy, and on new energy and environmental technologies.

Thirdly, we intend to use the summit to signal the broadest possible agreement on current foreign and security policy issues.

Cooperation on international crisis management is to be further intensified. Our close cooperation with the US in Kosovo and Afghanistan provide a sound basis.

Combating terrorism remains a further important aspect of our cooperation. On this topic the EU will underline the significance of our international obligations, including human rights, refugee rights and humanitarian international law.

The EU-US air transport agreement is to be signed at the summit, an important step on the way towards further liberalising transatlantic aviation.

A further key issue for the EU is the US Visa Waiver Programme. The EU has raised this matter in its contacts with the US at many different levels and will do so again at the summit. We will continue to urge that possible new US rules should allow visa-free travel for all the EU Member States in the near future.

Can the European Council state what measures it has introduced recently or is likely to introduce to eliminate red tape for Irish and European fishermen in the context of the practical implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

Improving and simplifying the regulatory environment, to which the honourable Member refers, is a matter for which the EU institutions bear joint responsibility. In the case of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), simplification forms part of the reform package which the Council adopted in December 2002. The Interinstitutional Agreement of December 2003 on Better Law-making⁽¹⁾ introduced a wide-ranging EU strategy, intended to yield practical results in simplifying Community legislation in all sectors.

In April 2005 the Council welcomed the Commission communication, 'Perspectives for simplifying and improving the regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy' and unanimously agreed that a multiannual action plan was required which should comprise short-term and long-term measures and a mid-term review. The Council also called on the Commission to devise measures to recast Community legislation.

In December 2005 the Council noted the Commission communication, '2006-08 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy'. When this Action Plan was presented, the Council agreed that at least once per six-monthly Presidency, progress in simplifying the CFP should be reviewed. Since the Conclusions of December 2005, the Council has regularly noted the Commission's reports on the progress made in this respect during the Austrian, Finnish and German Presidencies.

In addition, in the past year the Council has adopted a series of legislative provisions which have simplified and improved the CFP. These include, for example, Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund⁽²⁾ and Council Regulation (EC) No 1966/2006 on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and on means of remote sensing⁽³⁾, as well as the rapid adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1941/2006 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2007⁽⁴⁾.

The Council looks forward to fresh proposals and measures to simplify the regulatory framework of the CFP, for example a Commission proposal to simplify data collection and monitoring and to reform the technical measures to protect juvenile marine organisms.

Can the European Council make a statement as to the initiatives that it is pursuing at the moment to promote the benefits of playing sport in Europe?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the Presidency and is not binding on either the Council or its members, was not presented orally at Council Question Time at Parliament’s April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council would firstly point out that under the Treaties – which do not refer explicitly to sport or sports activities – it has no specific competence regarding initiatives of the kind mentioned in the Member’s question.

The Council is of course aware that sport can play a valuable role, especially in promoting education and health, combating discrimination, and preserving an inclusive society. The December 2000 Nice European Council recognised the educative value of sport, thus confirming earlier statements, in particular the declaration annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which emphasises the social significance of sport and its role in bringing people together. In addition, the Council adopted a resolution in May 2003 on the social value of sport for young people.

At the same time, however, the Council must stress that practical measures and initiatives to promote sport and spread its benefits are a matter first and foremost for national authorities.

Will the European Council make a statement as to what initiatives it is currently pursuing to ensure that a greater level of debt relief is put in place for Third World countries?

(DE) This answer, which was drawn up by the Presidency and is binding on neither the Council nor the Member States, was not given orally during Question Time to the Council at the European Parliament's April 2007 part-session in Strasbourg.

The Council shares the honourable Member's concern that heavy debts in developing countries are a substantial obstacle to growth, as they reduce the scope for measures to combat poverty. The international community has responded to this problem in recent years and helped to reduce it by means of joint measures such as HIPC and MDRI.

The European Consensus on Development Policy, which the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission signed on 20 December 2005, recognises debt cancellation as one of the ways of implementing development aid. Debt cancellation, which is equivalent to indirect budget support, entails low transaction costs and tends to promote cooperation and coordination between donors, could help countries to reduce their vulnerability to external shocks where it is found to be necessary and appropriate.

As regards the ACP countries in particular, with a view to reducing those countries' debt burden and payments problems, the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement) contains special provisions to support debt relief and structural adjustments, under which resources provided for in the Agreement can be used to contribute to internationally agreed debt relief initiatives for the benefit of ACP countries.

The Council fully supports international debt relief initiatives, such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC), which now covers 49 countries, and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), which was set in motion in 2006 after the G8 summit of 2005 at Gleneagles and has the purpose of bringing about complete cancellation of the debts of the HIPC countries to the IMF, the World Bank subsidiary the IDA (International Development Association) and the African Development Fund. Additional funding made available by the G8 ensures that the financing capacity of the international financial institutions is not reduced. The traditional debt relief instruments of the Paris Club are also available. Under the Evian Approach, made-to-measure solutions can be provided to give non-HIPC countries comprehensive debt relief.

Galileo, the European Global Satellite System, was designed by the European Commission to guarantee a European-controlled satellite guidance system free of the constraints of the US military, which runs the current GPS system. Now the project is in serious danger of not being delivered at the time envisaged, owing to the lack of negotiations between Member State governments and companies interested in participating in the Galileo programme.

What measures does the Council envisage taking in order to move the negotiations forward? Does the Council have an alternative solution if the Galileo programme does not start on time? How will the very probable delay influence the implementation of the Galileo programme and what effect will this have on the EU Member States?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Since the negotiations with the consortium of applicants on the Galileo contract had come to a dead halt, the Presidency of the Council met with the Commission in February and had talks with the consortium partners, which talks revealed that the firms involved in the project had not acted on the decisions they had taken in December 2005 on important organisational issues and that they, despite being pressed as a matter of urgency by the Presidency to discharge their obligations, had been unable to agree on a joint course of action.

The Council, therefore, when it met on 22 March 2007, resolved to make it plain to all the parties to negotiations, and to the general public, that this situation was unsustainable. In its conclusions, the Council set 10 May 2007 as the deadline for the resumption of negotiations between the consortium of applicants and the GNSS supervisory authority on the basis of the December 2005 agreement, and strongly urged them to achieve substantial progress in time for its June meeting; the consequence of this is that there is a definite prospect of the negotiations being concluded. Further to this, the Commission was asked to report to the Council on the state of negotiations and on the costs of, and funding for, the Galileo project.

The Commission is also requested to draw up alternative scenarios for the future implementation of the Galileo project in order that the Council may have a sound basis on which to reach a decision in June. The Council intends to take a decision on these scenarios in order to prevent further delays occurring to the Galileo process.

The Bulgarian parliament recently decided to set up a special nine-member committee to examine the archives of the State Security Bureau during the period of socialist rule.

According to its chairman, the committee's main priority will be to examine and publish the records of all candidates in future European elections, together with those of public figures, politicians, public officials, judges and journalists. The prospect that this information will be used for anti-democratic proceedings, discrimination and intimidation is arousing great indignation.

What is the Council's position on this anti-democratic behaviour by a Member State? Does it agree with these measures, which are clear violations of the freedom of thought and expression and introduce the principle that citizens may be punished for the political and ideological opinions they hold?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Since this question does not fall within the Council’s remit, the Council has not discussed it.

It does, however, point out that the promotion of human rights is among the European Union’s priorities, and that the obligation upon EU Member States to respect fundamental rights is also laid down in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since EU Member States are also members of the Council of Europe, they are also subject to the obligations resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights, by adding to the EU’s monitoring and information capacities, helps to guarantee the unrestricted respect for fundamental rights.

The aggressive plans by the United States to install its anti-missile shield in central Europe through the setting up of ten missile-launching bases in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic by 2011, together with US interference in Ukraine and the Caucasus, have prompted large-scale demonstrations by workers and citizens in the region. The contradictory pronouncements made by the European Union's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, are reminiscent of the oracle of Delphi, but in fact they provide a veil for the actions of the United States, heightening popular concern and reaction.

What will the Council do to prevent the planned deployment by the United States of its anti-missile shield in the territory of EU Member States, given that this will trigger a fresh arms race and a further increase in military spending, while stoking rivalries and jeopardising stability in Europe, having already prompted a strong reaction on the part of citizens and peace movements?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Bilateral cooperation by the Czech Republic or Poland with the USA in respect to the installation of an anti-missile system is a matter of national competence for the states in question, and has therefore not been discussed by the Council, nor, indeed, has the Council undertaken any evaluation of these agreements, the consequence of which is that there has been no examination of how they are compatible with the principles underpinning the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the same way, there have been no talks between the EU and the USA or trans-Atlantic agreements on any cooperation in this area, nor have any such talks or agreements been planned. The Council has given no consideration to the possibility of raising the issue of strategic anti-missile defence systems in talks with the USA or with NATO.

The EU adopted a common position on Cuba in 1996, with the objective of supporting political change there. This was a clear case of interference in the affairs of a sovereign state, which currently chairs the non-aligned movement with its membership of over 100 countries. The German presidency has now publicly proclaimed its intention to draw up a 'medium and long-term strategy' on Cuba, under which it not only reiterates the unacceptable objective of the 'common position' but adds a 'secret' annex detailing a set of measures for direct interference, of a nature comparable to that of the US strategy towards Cuba.

Can the Council explain the nature and objectives of its current debates on Cuba?

(DE) This answer, which was drafted by the presidency and is binding neither on the Council nor on its members, was not given orally during Questions to the Council at the April 2007 plenary sitting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The Council regrets the dissemination of false information or misinterpretations concerning its position on Cuba, which does nothing to help either the current internal deliberations or the improvement of bilateral relations. The Council has always refused to use coercive measures to bring about change, and that position is clearly expressed in the Common Position, which envisages the offering of cooperation and dialogue. Contrary to what is implied in the honourable Member’s question, dialogue with all sections of Cuban society can certainly not be understood as ‘interference in the affairs of a sovereign state’. To the best of our knowledge, Cuba’s embassies maintain regular and unhindered contact to all sections of society in the Member States or to the institutions of the European Union, and this is not regarded as interference in democratic societies.

The EU has had repeated occasion to point out to the Cuban Government the unsatisfactory state of human rights in its country, and it has, when it has done so, also demanded the release of all political detainees. It is for Cuba to bring about changes in these circumstances, since it is a Member of the Human Rights Council, and its conduct may therefore be expected to be exemplary. The Council notes with satisfaction that this policy is firmly supported by an overwhelming majority of the Members of the European Parliament.

It is perfectly normal that the EU should try to reassess its policy in the light of the new situation brought about by major changes within the Cuban leadership. The EU’s policy is autonomous and not comparable with the USA’s strategy, something that even the USA concedes.

Are the recent arrests of Commission officials the result of tighter administrative controls in Brussels? Will further investigations and arrests follow? How many such cases were there during 2006 and the first part of this year?

(EN) The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for giving it the opportunity to set out the Commission's view of the recent corruption case which raised a lot of media attention.

We are talking about investigations into tenders relating to the leasing and procurement of EC delegation buildings and their security installations in countries outside the EU. These investigations have been conducted by the European Anti-fraud office (OLAF) in close cooperation by the Belgian and Italian judicial and police authorities. On 27 March 2007 searches on the premises of the Commission, the Parliament and of several homes and companies led to a large volume of files being seized and three arrests have been made in Belgium. The main offences alleged by the Belgian judicial authorities were corruption, violation of professional secrecy and criminal conspiracy. More recently, on 11 April 2007, the Belgian Court decided to keep the three suspects detained in preventive custody. The Commission intents to collaborate in this inquiry and decided speedily to apply to be represented before the Court.

One of these three persons is a member of staff of the Commission, one a business man and the third is a parliamentary assistant. According to the Belgian authorities, the actual number of public tenders concerned and their financial impact is for the moment unknown. Therefore it is not possible to determine the exact measure of the damage.

As to the Honourable Member's question, these arrests were not the result of any new measures taken in the Commission, administrative or other. The OLAF investigation started in 2004. The Commission has been very vigilant not to tolerate wrongdoing by its staff for years and all allegations are followed-up vigorously. In spite of this 'zero tolerance' attitude of the Commission it is impossible to prevent all occurrences of fraud.

But the present case shows that our fraud detection and investigation systems, progressively refined since 1999, have functioned effectively and OLAF has confirmed that it has received excellent cooperation from all the European Institutions. Furthermore, the policy on rotation of holders of financially sensitive posts, introduced as part of the administrative reform, allowed the Commission to move the person under investigation to a different post without damaging the ongoing enquiry.

The Commission will carefully assess whether the case discloses systemic weaknesses as further information becomes available and draw appropriate lessons for the future.

Finally, the Honourable Member asked how many cases there has been since the beginning of 2006. In 2006 there was one comparable case concerning the arrest of a contract agent for passive corruption in the framework of public tenders. This case still remains the subject of a procedure by the competent national authority. During the period 1 January 2006 – 31 December 2006, OLAF opened 17 internal investigations related to allegations of possible corruption.

One of the principal objectives of cohesion policy is to contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy. Research technology and innovation are also considered as fundamental means of achieving regional development and convergence.

In view of this, what does the Commission expect will be the contribution of the NSRF for the period 2007-2013 to national and regional indicators in Greece under the Lisbon Agenda? How does it intend to motivate municipalities and regions to achieve the Lisbon objectives? What other measures is it planning to foster a climate of innovation in the EU regions?

(EN) The first question concerns the expected contribution of the Greek National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 to the national and regional indicators for the Lisbon Strategy. On this matter, the Commission would like to emphasize that Greece has made a good start by allocating substantial amounts in Community contributions to Lisbon-type actions. Expressed in terms of the total planned Community contribution for convergence areas in Greece, 62% concerns Lisbon-related actions. For the regional competitiveness and employment areas the corresponding figure is 67%. Priority areas include the development of human resources, support for projects in the field of research and technological development by businesses and universities, and the promotion of digital convergence by support for broadband infrastructure and digital services in the private and public sector. To measure results, the National Strategic Reference Framework proposes a series of indicators, which include "Lisbon indicators" such as the percentage of the population that has completed advanced education, labour productivity, domestic expenditure on research and technology, and a synthetic innovation indicator.

The earmarking of funds for Lisbon-related activities is notably justified when examining the innovation performance of Greece, on the basis of the latest European Innovation Scoreboard 2006. According to this, Greece is found to poorly perform in many innovation indicators including: business R&D⁽¹⁾ expenses, patents issued, early stage venture capital provision, lifelong learning and broadband penetration.

The allocation of funds will have to be matched by appropriate structures and beneficiaries for the implementation of the co-financed actions. In fact, already the current Third Community Support Framework was highly "Lisbonised": substantial amounts in funding were allocated to Lisbon-type actions, in particular under the Operational Programmes "Competitiveness" and "Information society" but also in the regional programmes. Unfortunately, the implementation of many such actions has revealed itself problematic, for which reason eventually funds have been transferred away from them. So the main issue to be resolved in order to implement successfully the Lisbon strategy in Greece, will be the establishment of suitable project implementation structures, which will ensure the effective and timely use of the available funds.

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that in this perspective the local and regional dimension should play an important role. There are large disparities within Greece in terms of "Lisbon indicators". Therefore, in the current negotiations on the Operational Programmes, the Commission pays particular attention to the inclusion of realistic regional strategies for Lisbon-sensitive domains. On the specific role of cities, the Commission would like to stress that for the 2007-2013 period, it has proposed JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) as an instrument for cities to prepare and finance integrated urban development plans. The Greek authorities intend to use this instrument and they are collaborating with the European Investment Bank Group on the assessment of current situation and on the evaluation of needs. Additionally, through the European Social Fund (ESF) support will be given the promotion and mainstreaming of innovative activities in training, education, employability programmes with focus on vulnerable social groups (youth, women, migrants, ethnic minorities etc) in order to minimise social disparities in cities and urban areas.

As concerns EU support for the establishment of an innovative environment, the Commission would like to stress that Cohesion Policy supports innovation mainly in two ways: a) the co-financing provided through the Structural Funds and b) the development of a system of regional governance based on strategic development, partnership, programming, monitoring and evaluation. Programmes co-financed through the Cohesion Policy should seek to target resources to encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and the growth of the knowledge economy by strengthening research and innovation capacities and information and communication technologies. In many cases, the governance system is an innovative policy in itself. In this way, Cohesion Policy promotes capacity building for innovation: there is a shared responsibility of regional authorities, large and small businesses, universities and research institutes. Furthermore, the Greek political authorities at high level will be invited in the next months to take part in a European initiative, called “European Cluster Memorandum”, which aims at developing stronger innovation regional clusters in view to make them world leaders in their domain. This will be achieved through trans-national cooperation activities and by streamlining Community, national and regional funds in support of innovation clusters.

Could you provide Structural Fund take-up figures as at the end of 2006 for the new Member States, especially Lithuania?

What is the Commission doing to facilitate the exchange of experience and best practices in the administration of Structural Funds among Member States?

(EN) If we take the percentage of payments made with respect to the decided (committed) amount as an indication of the absorption capacity of Structural Funds, then as of 11 April 2007, the average absorption rate of 46.7 % reflects rather satisfactory performance in terms of Structural Funds implementation in the new Member States, given the fact that EU-10 have actually started the real implementation only in 2005, following the adoption of programming documents in 2004.

Absorption of Structural Funds varies between 38.6 % (Cyprus) and 64.7 % (Slovenia). Lithuania is just above the average of 46.7 % with an absorption rate of 47.5 %. By fund, the average absorption rate in EU-10 is as follows: ESF⁽¹⁾ 40.0 %, ERDF⁽²⁾ 46.8%, FIFG⁽³⁾ 48.1% and EAGGF⁽⁴⁾ 57.2 %.

Lithuania remains below the average rate with regard to the ESF Programmes (29.7 %). For other three Funds the absorption rate in Lithuania exceeds respective EU10 average rates: EAGGF 62.6 %, FIFG 58.1 % and ERDF 49.5 %.

The Commission, in addition to close monitoring of progress in programme implementation and funds absorption, to suggesting proactive initiatives as appropriate, regularly organises conferences to facilitate the exchange of experience and best practices in administration of Structural Funds among Member States. A series of three conferences aiming at bringing together partners to exchange best practices was launched in January 2006.

The first conference of this series 'Innovating through regional policy' - took place in June 2006, the second, in January 2007, looked at the 'responses of regional policy to demographic challenges', and the third, 'Fostering competitiveness through innovative technologies, products and healthy communities', took place in March 2007. All three conferences provided excellent opportunities for regional partners to learn from each others' experiences both through participation in the workshops and through networking.

The third conference was also the first annual Spring conference of the Regions For Economic Change initiative, whose aim is to address some of the core issues that Europe is facing and make a stronger link between the exchange of best practices developed in the inter-regional cooperation and urban development network programmes, and the main body of funding.

With this initiative, the Commission is taking unprecedented steps to support the exchange of experience and best practices. In addition to the annual Spring conference already mentioned, the Commission would like to highlight in particular the following three actions.

Firstly, a Regions For Economic Change website has been established to serve as an information tool on the priority themes set out in the Regions For Economic Change Communication, and on networks set up on these themes, as well as providing links to other important sources of information on Cohesion Policy, such as the Committee of the Regions' Lisbon Monitoring Platform.

Secondly, awards aiming to identify good innovative practices in regional development - the 'RegioStars Awards' - were launched at the March 2007 conference, with the objective of highlighting original and innovative projects which could be attractive and inspiring to other regions. The themes for this first round of awards, the winners of which will be announced at next year's Regions For Economic Change Spring conference, are: 'Supporting clusters and business networks', 'Technology transfer from research institutes to Small and Medium Enterprises', 'Energy efficiency and renewable energies', and 'Environmental technologies'.

Thirdly, through the fast track option, the Commission will offer its active involvement and expertise to Regions For Economic Change networks which bring together a good spread of territorial coverage and experience, include in their delegations both enthusiasts and those who can 'make things happen on the ground', ensure a link to the mainstream programmes and which have a particular focus on dissemination.

The ability of the new EU countries to make use of the assistance provided for them from EU regional policy funds will have a significant bearing on their economic and social development. So far, unfortunately, most of the new arrivals in the EU have not been very successful in taking up aid from Brussels. For example, by the beginning of 2007 Lithuania had been able to claim only around 30% of the structural assistance allocated to it in 2004-2006. The biggest backlog is to be found in environmental protection, industry, employment, the knowledge-based economy, and other areas linked to investment in human resources and in education and science.

In the Commission's view, what are the reasons for the lack of success in making use of EU assistance? What lessons might the Commission present in terms of practical experience with both successful and unsuccessful use of appropriations since the early days of the EU, and which of these conclusions might currently prove helpful? What additional measures will the Commission take, bearing in mind their specific circumstances, to ensure that the new EU countries can make swifter and more successful use of assistance in 2007-2013?

(EN) The historical record has shown that the level of absorption of resources tends to be slower in the early years following the decision to allocate Community resources to programmes at national or regional level, which is then followed by a period of catching up. This is in the nature of the exercise itself in the sense that the preparation of projects under the European programmes is often a complex task in financial, technical and administrative terms. Moreover, the EU has always insisted that projects are prepared according to the highest standards, for example, in terms of respect for Community law and policy in fields such as competition rules, public procurement and the environment.

The new Member States are in this initial phase when new rules and procedures are being laid down. In some cases there is still need to further invest in qualified human resources.

It also has to be recognised that the new Member States that joined in 2004 face the particular challenge of implementing two programming periods at the same time: 2004-2006 and 2007-2013. This is one of the reasons why the Commission decided to offer specific help to them by creating the Jaspers technical assistance facility to support the new Member States in preparing major projects for Community support. Furthermore, strengthening institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services becomes a specific priority for the European Social Fund interventions for the new programming period 2007-2013.

The administrative capacity to realise projects, especially major projects, can be a particular challenge, not only in the new Member States but also in the EU-15. This is the case, for example, in the field of transport, where projects tend to be large-scale, long-term and require a high degree of co-ordination. Such projects can be delayed by prolonged negotiations on financing or, of a legal nature, on contracts and planning issues, which are difficult to foresee at the outset. Evaluations have tended to confirm that the new Member States have successfully established the management framework for implementing cohesion policy. Moreover, there is already evidence of progress in relation to the learning cycle for the management of programmes. For example, in Estonia and the Czech Republic, evaluations noted that an extensive capacity had been acquired in terms of gathering monitoring data and defining indicators, baselines and targets.

On the other hand, more investment in human capacity is needed, particularly in the new Member States. In this regard, smaller countries with smaller administrations face a particular challenge. Training needs to be made available on all aspects of programme management, in project preparation for potential beneficiaries, and for external bodies involved in, for example, monitoring committees. The programmes for 2007-2013 place a particular emphasis on this aspect.

For the EU15, improvements in the governance of European cohesion policy programmes in the period 2000-06 exist. Examples include Italy where improved project appraisal, audit and monitoring capacity has been introduced. Austria has experimented with an original approach to evaluation, involving the collection of detailed information on inputs and outputs considered critical by stakeholders. Moreover, such improvements have often had positive spill-overs for other sectors of public intervention. The efficiency of administration of cohesion policy can also be improved by promoting the exchange of experience and best practices among Member States, and the Commission has actively encouraged this through publications, seminars and other events.

On institutional and administrative capacity building, the Commission has repeatedly insisted on the need to use cohesion programmes to reinforce administrative and institutional capacity beyond the implementation of cohesion policy. This is particularly important in the Convergence regions and Cohesion countries where the administrative and institutional obstacles constitute an important burden for socio-economic development. Investments in the institutional capacity of public administration and public services will also support the delivery and implementation of the Lisbon strategy. The programmes submitted so far by Member States reveal that an amount of almost €3.8 billion will be allocated for the period 2007-2013 to activities aimed at "improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation, capacity in the delivery of policy and programmes".

Regarding technical assistance, cohesion policy programmes have consistently sought to reinforce the management capacity of managing authorities in using the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. For example, the Commission made available to the Lithuanian administration specific, additional technical assistance to help assess the bottlenecks and identify solutions in the Cohesion Fund project preparation and implementation. This will also apply for the period 2007-2013.

What will be the specific consequences of the acknowledged delay on the part of the Bulgarian Government in developing and negotiating the National Strategic Reference Framework and the National Operational Programme for regional development for 2007-2013? Will this not lead to a reduction in the financial resources earmarked for Bulgaria for the first year of its full EU membership (2007) as well as for the whole reference period (2007-2013)?

(EN) The official draft of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) for Bulgaria was transmitted to the Commission on 16 January 2007, which was well within the deadline of five months following the adoption of the Community Strategic Guidelines on Europan Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 on 6 October 2006.

On 29 January 2007, the Commission declared the document admissible. All the services of the Commission have been consulted to assess whether the Commission's comments during previous informal discussions with the Bulgarian authorities had been taken into account.

The Bulgarian authorities also formally submitted within the regulatory deadline all seven Operational Programmes on 5 March 2007.

The Commission is currently negotiating the NSRF and Operational Programmes of Bulgaria. In this context, interruptions in the approval process are not unusual. This is a standard procedure in the negotiations with Member States in all cases when there are still unresolved issues. The approval of NSRF of Bulgaria is foreseen for mid 2007.

In any case, the financial allocation of Bulgaria has been decided in the context of the Financial Perspectives and the financial allocation to Bulgaria (€6.853 million) cannot be reduced in the first year of Bulgaria's full EU membership (2007), or for the whole programming period 2007-2013.

As regards the application of the automatic decommitment rule, the first risk for Bulgaria will not occur before 31 December 2010.

Furthermore, the date of adoption of an Operational Programme does not have an impact on the start of eligibility of expenditure: Article 56 of the Regulation 1083/2006 states that expenditure shall be eligible for a contribution from the Funds if it has actually been paid between the date of submission of the Operational Programmes to the Commission or from 1 January 2007, whichever is earlier. In the case of Bulgaria its eligibility started on 1 January 2007.

Finally, the Commission has already urged the Bulgarian authorities to take pre-contractual steps towards implementation, such as launching calls for proposal, in order not to lose any valuable preparation time. This will also contribute to a speedier implementation of the Structural Funds.

Cross-border cooperation between the EU’s regions is of great importance, as policy areas such as trade, tourism or transport can be handled better at supra-regional level and thus promote growth and living standards in the EU regions.

This also applies to cooperation between EU regions and non-EU regions, which by contributing to the economic and social development of these frontier areas are also helping to implement the European Neighbourhood Policy and security strategy.

In view of its significance cross-border cooperation needs to have a clear and dependable legal framework at European level, so as to clarify current uncertainties in this area. What measures has the Commission been taking, or proposed for the near future, with this aim in view?

(EN) The Commission very much shares the Honourable Member’s views on the importance of cross-border co-operation, as evidenced by the significantly increased funding for 2007 to 2013 which is available to support this activity, under the European Union’s Cohesion Policy, the Instrument for Pre-Accession, and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

The Commission is equally very aware of the need to have a strong legal framework to support cross-border activities, and this is why it proposed the concept of a “European Grouping of Territorial Co-operation” as part of the negotiation on the new Structural Funds regulations. The Commission was particularly pleased when a specific regulation covering these Groupings was adopted as part of the new Cohesion Policy package in 2006.

A European Grouping of Territorial Co-operation will be an optional tool for national, regional and local authorities allowing them to establish a distinct legal entity capable of operating across European Union borders. Such a Grouping will be able to manage co-operation programmes or projects in a unique, integrated way.

Member States are currently establishing the necessary national rules to govern the creation of these Groupings and the Commission looks forward to seeing the first Groupings formally established later in 2007.

Furthermore, as far as Trans-European Transport and Energy networks are concerned, the Commission may designate, in agreement with the Member States concerned, and after having consulted the Parliament, a European coordinator, whose role is to promote the European dimension of the project and the cross-border dialogue between the project promoters and the different bodies concerned (local and regional authorities for instance) and to contribute to the coordination of the national procedures to facilitate the implementation of such projects.

Negotiations for the final approval of the operational programmes and the beginning of the scheduled implementation of the projects for the new programming period 2007-2013 are now at a crucial stage. How does the Commission ensure that the Member States have drawn up the documents in cooperation with the competent bodies at national, regional and local level? How does it ensure that the necessary resources will be invested to create the infrastructure and systems to enable the programmes in the new period to be swiftly and effectively applied and implemented? What stage has been reached with the procedures for the application and implementation mechanisms of the programmes in the new period? With particular regard to Greece, how will the Commission ensure that the new system to be established is flexible, effective and efficient?

(EN) The Regulation governing the Structural Funds (Article 11) stipulates that programming documents must be prepared in partnership between the national, regional and local authorities, socio-economic partners and other bodies (such as Non-Governmental Organisations) in accordance with national rules and practices.

The design of the system for the management and control of programmes co-funded by the European Union in 2007-2013 is the responsibility of the Member States, within the limits set by Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006⁽¹⁾ and Commission Regulation (EC) 1828/2006⁽²⁾.

During the negotiating phase, the Commission pays special attention to the issue of how National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and Operational Programmes (OPs) have been prepared in each Member State. As part of the analysis of each draft document, the Commission analyses how the partnership principle in line with Article 11 is being implemented. Whereas the Commission is not in the position to harmonise the organisation of partnership principle in each Member State, during the quality analysis of each programming document it looks at aspects such as selection criteria for involvement of partners, appropriate communication means and structure to ensure widest possible partnership among all relevant actors, transparency of partnership. Best practice examples are communicated to relevant authorities. The programming documents may only be adopted if the partnership principle has been respected.

The experience so far shows that most of the Member States improve the implementation of partnership principle and consider involvement of various national, regional or local actors as a natural part of the preparatory process. According to an internal DG REGIO⁽³⁾ survey (Autumn 2006), there has been a balanced participation of all actors mentioned in Article 11 of the General Regulation in the preparatory process for NSRFs and OPs, mostly via a range of publicity and information events.

In accordance with Article 71 of the aforementioned Council Regulation the Member States have to provide the description of the management and control system for each programme before the first application for an interim payment is transmitted to the Commission, or at the latest within twelve months of the approval of each operational programme.

During the analysis of OPs the Commission emphasises that structures and bodies are designated in accordance with Articles 37 and 59 of General Regulation. The documents shall include:

- a clear identification of the authorities and bodies in a non-ambiguous manner;

- a brief description of their role and responsibilities in the management and the control of the OP;

- an explanation of how the principle of separation of functions between and within the authorities and bodies is to be respected.

On the basis of the previous audits, information about weaknesses in current systems exists and they will be used by the Commission in the negotiations to avoid recurrence. As regards Greece, the Greek OPs were submitted in March 2007 and are currently being examined by the Commission. The description of the management and control system has not yet been submitted, so that no answer can be given for the moment to this point.

Has the Commission sufficient resources - to be channelled in particular via the European Agency for the Management of External Borders (Frontex) - to patrol the EU's maritime borders and if necessary to prevent or reduce massive influxes of immigrants of the kind which occurred last year?

(EN) The Commission is continuously building a European approach to an integrated border management policy that needs to be dynamic and able to deal with new challenges. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) is a key component of that policy.

Since the setting up of FRONTEX, numerous border control operations have been successfully coordinated by FRONTEX. The joint operations have proven their added value at European level and will be further complemented by the establishment of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT). The Council and the Parliament intend to adopt this new Regulation in June 2007. It will amend the existing provisions on joint operations and provide legal certainty to all actors involved i.e. guest officers, border guards, whilst at the same time make the operations more effective.

In 2007, FRONTEX has activated Article 7 of the Regulation establishing the Agency, allowing for pooling at European level of technical equipment that can be put at the disposal of a requesting Member State.

Joint operations are an important tool, but not the only one. Therefore the Commission is supporting FRONTEX to enter into working arrangements with third countries as a means for strengthening the external dimension of border control.

For the year 2007 the financial and human resources of FRONTEX have been increased. It will allow FRONTEX to further develop 'state of the art' operations aiming to combat illegal immigration at a European level. Furthermore the Commission endeavours to improve the coordination of the different services tasked with upholding the security of the external borders at national level, as well as at European level, i.e. between FRONTEX and other bodies such as Europol.

Based on the conclusions of the European Council of December 2006 FRONTEX is, as recommended by the Commission in its Communication of November 2006, taking forward the establishment of a European Coastal Patrol Network. An initial exchange of views with Member States has taken place at the April Justice and Home Affairs Council.

The Commission will return to the question of how FRONTEX can be further reinforced in its upcoming evaluation report of the Agency foreseen by the end of 2007, which should be followed by a political discussion in the European institutions.

Recent estimates of AIDS sufferers put the numbers of carriers of the virus at 47 million worldwide. For 25 years, Europe and the world have been aware, and are constantly reminded, of the need for vigilance and a public prevention and information campaign, targeting young people in particular, about the disease and the constantly increasing number of cases throughout the world. The problem is also a matter of intense concern for the European Union, where the rapid spread of the virus is a scourge in a number of Member States. The EU must now breathe new life into the Community programmes for combating the AIDS virus, given that 4 million Europeans are infected every year.

As part of the EU's efforts to combat the virus and given the lack of Community resources, will the Commission say whether it will propose that the Member States print and sell a special edition of postage stamps on the theme of AIDS, accompanied by information leaflets on the best methods of prevention, with the proceeds being used for the purchase of pharmaceutical material and scientific training of specialist personnel?

(EN) The Commission has strongly supported over the years the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) agenda at Member State, European and global level.

The Commission has worked intensively with Council and Parliament to strengthen the European’s voice and activities in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The contribution of the EU to the fight against HIV/AIDS cannot and should not be measured only in financial terms.

The European Union adopted in 2004 a strategic policy Framework to confront HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria through external actions, and in 2005 a Programme for action in developing countries.

Furthermore, the Commission adopted in 2005 the Communication on combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in neighbouring countries. That Communication comprises a specific Action Plan.

One element in the Action Plan is awareness rising among the general public. To implement this task, the Commission has set up partnerships with governments, media companies, and civil society. The Honourable Member’s suggestion could be considered in this context as one of the measures to promote citizens’ awareness.

Given that the responsibility for issuing postage stamps lies with national post offices, the Commission does not dispose of any tools to implement such an initiative.

Nevertheless, the Commission finds the proposal interesting and worth pursuing in the context of the competences set out above.

Given the public concern in the UK surrounding the recent avian flu outbreak, is it not correct that the UK Government - on the basis of the precautionary principle - could have legitimately chosen to suspend imports of poultry from Hungary for a short period while the extent of the outbreak there was confirmed, without the Commission being compelled to take the UK to Court?

(EN) A wide set of harmonised measures are in place at Community level to control avian influenza outbreaks. Rules include restrictions on movements of poultry and poultry products from infected areas.

Hungary conformed with these protection measures when an outbreak of avian influenza was confirmed on 24 January 2007 in a goose farm on its territory.

The legal EU mechanisms give the Commission, assisted by Member States' experts in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health powers to assess the situation and to decide if additional safeguard measures are necessary in the case of an outbreak, taking into account the precautionary principle, as appropriate.

On 26 January 2007, the Commission examined the measures taken by Hungary in the Standing Committee and deemed them appropriate to prevent the spread of avian flu. A ban of intra-community trade of birds from the whole territory of Hungary was not considered necessary.

Furthermore, from the investigations in the United Kingdom (UK) and Hungary, no elements have emerged to suggest that the adoption of more stringent measures for the Hungarian outbreak would have prevented the outbreak in the UK.

As the intra-Community trade in poultry is an area harmonised under Community law, Member States may only take safeguard measures in accordance with Community legislation (eg. Article 10 of Directive 90/425 or Article 54 of Regulation 178/2002), which should be referred to the Commission without delay for a decision under the comitology procedure.

What steps has the Commission taken to improve and strengthen the checks on the various Directorates-General by the competent Commissioners with the corresponding mandate, and the checks on Commission officials as a whole by the College of Commissioners? What further steps are planned?

(FR) The Commission believes that the existing regulatory framework and the procedures in force constitute a solid control environment with a clear definition of the chain of command.

Indeed, it is the Commission that defines its political priorities and that adopts an annual work programme that translates the political strategy and objectives into an operational programme of decisions to be adopted. The work programme lists the legislative initiatives, as well as the implementing acts and other acts that the Commission intends to adopt in order to fulfil these priorities. The President of the Commission presents the Commission work programme to Parliament and to the Council. The Commission services are for their part responsible for implementing this work programme and, in particular, for establishing their annual management plan. This plan is there to ensure that the priorities decided on by the College are implemented more effectively in their respective areas of responsibility.

The rules of procedure of the Commission and the Code of Conduct of Commissioners⁽¹⁾, adopted by the Commission at the start of its mandate, define the relations between the members of the Commission and their services. They are based on loyalty, trust and transparency. The members of the Commission must have information from their own services and the central services in order to exercise their political responsibility and their supervisory role, and it is their responsibility to ensure that the guidelines and political priorities that they themselves have set are implemented coherently with the work programme of the College and with the principle of collegiality. To that end, the College and its members have the option of giving instructions to the respective services.

In accordance with the rules of procedure of the Commission and of the Code of Conduct of Commissioners, work patterns are established between each Commissioner and the Director-Generals under their authority. These rules provide, in particular, for the obligation for the services to report to the member of the Commission any information that is liable to undermine his responsibility or that of the College.

Furthermore, Article 11 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities stipulates that an official ‘shall carry out the duties assigned to him objectively, impartially and in keeping with his duty of loyalty to the Communities’. In accordance with Article 21 of the Staff Regulations, an official shall assist and tender advice to his superiors and he shall be responsible for the performance of the duties assigned to him. The same principles apply to the other staff members of the Communities.

Оn 23 January 2007 I submitted a question for written answer to the Commission pursuant to Rule 110(4) of the Rules of Procedure, inquiring whether there was any official decision of the Commission on the closure of units 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant and, if there was, when and on whose initiative it was adopted. On 27 February 2007, after two weeks' delay, I received an answer from Commissioner Piebalgs which does not contain the information that I requested.

As far back as 2002 Commissioner Günter Verheugen, in his speech on behalf of the Commission before the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria, announced that the Commission required the closure of the small units at Kozloduy nuclear power plant. This statement by Commissioner Verheugen has been called into question by a subsequent judgment of the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg on a complaint lodged by Bulgarian nuclear workers.

Given Kozloduy's extreme importance for European energy independence, I would urge the Commission once again to give me a brief and clear answer to the following question: is there any Commission decision obliging Bulgaria to close down units 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant? If there is, when, at which Commission meeting and on whose initiative was it adopted?

(EN) There is no Decision by the Commission on the closure of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. The closure of this nuclear power plant was negotiated as part of the conditions of accession of Bulgaria to the European Union and included as such in the Treaty of Accession.

The Commission – in its role of guardian of the Treaties – will oversee the correct implementation of the relevant clauses.

In particular, Article 30 of the Protocol to the Accession Treaty concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, signed on 25 April 2005, states: "Bulgaria, having closed − in line with its commitments −definitively for subsequent decommissioning Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant before the year 2003, commits to the definitive closure of Unit 3 and Unit 4 of this plant in 2006 and to subsequent decommissioning of these units".

Following its own commitments, Bulgaria shut down Units 1 and 2 on 31 December 2002, essentially at the end of their design-life of 30 years. Units 3 and 4, being connected to the grid respectively on 1980 and 1982, have been shut down, on average, only five years before their design-life.

The same Article 30 of the Protocol also describes the financial assistance provided to Bulgaria in support of its efforts to decommission and to address the consequences of the closure and decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant.

This assistance has provided the means for an extensive modernization of the remaining two Units 5 and 6 at Kozloduy, through the Community pre-accession PHARE assistance and a EURATOM loan.

On 22 February 2007 an Egyptian blogger, Mr Abdel Karim Nabil Suleiman, was sentenced to four years in prison for 'insulting' Islam. He stated that his main objective was to defend the rights of Muslim women against all forms of discrimination and violence.

In 1982 Egypt unconditionally ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 of the Covenant, which directly confers rights on Egyptian citizens, lays down the right to freedom of expression. Article 2 of the Association Agreement of 25 June 2001 states that respect for fundamental human rights is an 'essential element' of the Agreement. Pursuant to Article 86, appropriate measures may be taken if a party violates the Agreement.

In the Commission's view, does the above arrest constitute a violation of Article 2? If so, what steps will the Commission be taking?

(EN) The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the question on the restriction of freedom of expression in Egypt and the case of the detention of the Internet blogger Karim Sulaiman. The Commission, through its Delegation in Cairo, and together with Member States is following these developments very closely.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission is paying much attention to the democratic and human rights situation in Egypt. It is particularly concerned about restrictions on the freedom of expression, including on the Internet. The Commission is using all the means at its disposal to encourage Egyptian authorities to progress in this area. The call for greater political reform and respect of human rights is indeed an intrinsic part of the EU’s partnership with Egypt.

The EU, based notably on the provisions of Article 2 of the Association Agreement, consistently raises the importance of respecting human rights in bilateral contacts, including at the highest level with Egypt. In particular, political developments in Egypt, including human rights, are discussed in the course of the political dialogue at the Association Council.

As the Honourable Member knows, the Association Council adopted the EU-Egypt Action Plan under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) on 6 March 2007. This Action Plan marks a new stepping stone in our relations with Egypt as it provides a comprehensive policy framework, based on an agenda of mutual commitments on political, social and economic issues, centered on common values shared by Egypt and the EU. Indeed, one of the key priorities for action is the promotion of the protection of human rights in all its aspects, including freedom of expression and pluralism of the media.

In addition, the Action Plan provides for the establishment of a formal and regular dialogue on human rights and democracy in the context of the sub-committee on political matters: human rights and democracy, international and regional issues, which has been recently created.

The Commission firmly believes that dialogue with Egypt in the framework of the political arrangements set out in the Association Agreement and in the ENP Action Plan, is the most effective way to impress upon the Egyptian Government the EU’s concerns regarding respect for human rights and international law. The threat of suspension of any part of the Association Agreement is likely to diminish, rather than bolster, our ability to bring its influence to bear on Egypt.

In recital U of its resolution of 14 December 2006 (P6_TA(2006)0604) on a strategy for biomass and biofuels (2006/2082(INI)), Parliament highlights the lack of clear environmental standards and safeguards in the production of biofuels and voices concern that this could result in significant negative effects on the environment. In paragraph 46, it therefore calls on the Commission to subject the importation of palm-oil-based products into the EU to compliance with sustainable production criteria and to develop a certification scheme.

Does the Commission agree that quality standards should be developed, e.g. through certification schemes, in order to set and enforce environmental parameters for the manufacture and import from third countries of biomass for energy supply?

If so, what will be the minimum requirements for the production of biomass? What criteria (land use/climate impact/fertilizer use) will be made a priority?

(EN) As stated in its Biofuels Progress Report⁽¹⁾, the Commission considers that a biofuel sustainability scheme is needed to discourage the use of poor-perfoming biofuels and encourage the use of biofuels with good environmental performance. In order to guarantee the achievement of this objective and avoid any trade discrimination, the system will need to apply equally to both imported and domestically produced biofuels.

This scheme is intended to form part of the forthcoming legislative proposal on renewable energy.

The Commission is currently developing the details of such a scheme. Efforts are currently focussing on three areas in particular:

a) ensuring that biofuels deliver a minimum level of greenhouse gas saving;

b) avoiding the conversion of high-carbon-stock land for the production of biofuels;

c) avoiding the loss of biodiversity such as through the conversion of areas of high biodiversity value for the production of biofuels.

It should be noted that fertiliser production and use leads to greenhouse gas emissions; these would need to be taken into account under point a) above.

Other environmental impacts (e.g. soil and water) are also being closely looked at.

Ambassador Martin Erdmann, Deputy Secretary-General of Nato, acknowledged at the meeting of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Defence on 28 February 2007 that Nato was closely cooperating with the EU in Afghanistan in that the European Commission was financing the provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan.

What funding is the Commission granting each year to support the 25 provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan, broken down by allocation to the various teams?

(EN) The Commission is indeed funding a project, “Support to Provincial Governance” in Afghanistan, worth € 10.3 million, to support those Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan’ (PRTs) civilian activities which are either led by an EU Member State or have received substantial support from a Member State. The number of PRTs eligible for support is currently 11. The project is funded from the Afghanistan budget line in the General Budget, and it is jointly managed with the International Organization for Migration, which is experienced in working with PRTs.

The project intends to strengthen support for governance, particularly the public administration and institutions related to the rule of law at the sub-national level.

Projects will range between € 100 000 and € 500 000 and may be implemented by national development agencies, governmental organisations and non-governmental organisations.

Proposals will be scrutinised on a first-come, first-served basis by a working group consisting of experts from the Commission Delegation, the EU Special Representative's office, as well as the EU Presidency. "Orphaned” provinces, having received less aid, will receive special attention.

According to a new report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO (Livestock's Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Options, 2006), the livestock sector is one of the biggest destroyers of the environment in the world. It is responsible for no less than 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – actually more than the combined emissions of greenhouse gases from the transport sector. Livestock's digestion and the manure they produce give rise to emissions of the powerful greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide. Emissions also occur when forests are felled to create pastureland, releasing carbon dioxide which was previously bound as carbon in trees. The production and transport of livestock, feed and meat also cause significant emissions.

The FAO stresses that it is very important to act vigorously to reduce the environmental impact of the livestock sector, and one way of doing so would be to ensure that the price of food reflects environmental costs. Other economic incentives may also be possible, for example environmental bonuses for plant production. Reducing the EU's agricultural subsidies would be an effective measure. Meat would probably become more expensive, which would halt the growth of meat consumption.

Does the Commission endorse the conclusions of the FAO report on the livestock sector's impact on greenhouse gas emissions? What measures will the Commission take to reduce substantially the adverse impact of the livestock sector on our environment?

(EN) The Commission acknowledges that the Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) report raises important issues at global level. It will, however, focus its response on the situation in the EU.

Most economic activities lead to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). The EU objective is making economic activities more sustainable, also from a climate perspective. Agriculture, including livestock, accounted for 9% of total EU GHG emissions in 2004, of which more than 5% is nitrous oxide and 4% is methane (mainly from livestock).

Emissions of methane decreased by about 14% in the period 1990-2004, primarily as a result of a significant decrease in livestock numbers (by 22%). This trend is mainly due to successive structural changes of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Almost all Member States reduced emissions from livestock, with largest decreases in the new Member States.

The reduction of overall agricultural emissions during 1990-2004 (13%) is considerably higher than the overall emissions reduction of all economic sectors (5%). Agriculture has therefore already made a significant contribution to the achievement of the Kyoto protocol commitment. Furthermore, emissions from agriculture are projected to decrease to a level of 18% below 1990 levels by 2010. The projected decrease of cattle numbers and increase in productivity is likely to contribute to further decline in methane emissions.

The Commission agrees that additional efforts can be made to reduce emissions from the livestock sector. In the latest reforms of the CAP, the Commission has taken important steps to change the way to support livestock sector. The total or partial decoupling of payments from production and cross-compliance are key measures that significantly reduce incentives towards intensive production. Climate change mitigation objectives have also been integrated into the rural development policy for 2007-2013.

Changes in livestock practices and adaptations of land use management, for example through improved diets or improved and integrated manure management, could be used to further reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Such measures are in line with the conclusions of the FAO report. Member States may well include such measures in their Rural Development Programmes for the period 2007-2013, in line with the EU Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, which place climate change as one of the three environmental priorities at European level.

It is to be noted that the livestock sector, in particular grazing livestock, also provides important environmental services such as the maintenance of pastures and diversity of European landscapes. The livestock sector also significantly contributes to the economies of rural areas. Therefore it is important not to undermine the competitiveness of the European livestock sector, which faces an increasing world competition. Also, it has to be taken into account that, as world demand for animal products (meat, milk, eggs) is not likely to diminish, mitigation measures taken in the EU will not result in a net global reduction of emissions because of reallocation of livestock activities to other countries. The challenge is to reconcile the demand of livestock products and the protection of the environment, as the FAO report recognises.

The Estonian Parliament has passed a law backing the removal of a memorial on Tönismägi Hill in Tallinn that honours Soviet soldiers who died fighting fascism.

What is the Commission's opinion on the planned demolition of anti-fascist memorials in Estonia, in particular of the memorial for fallen Soviet soldiers in Tallinn, commemorating victory over German fascism? What view does the Commission take of comments by Estonian politicians that the memorial to Soviet soldiers should be pulled down without any legal basis if need be?

(EN) The Commission recognises that the controversy surrounding the so-called “Bronze Soldier” statue in Tallinn is an extremely sensitive historical matter. However, it is for the Member States themselves to decide how best to address their past in full respect of their international commitments, including under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols. The Commission also considers that external pressures are not helpful in seeking solutions to such sensitive matters.

Let the Commission remind the Honourable Member, that the bill to which the Honourable Member refers – the Illegal Structures Bill – was not signed by the President of Estonia and has not therefore become law. It is the War Graves Protection Act adopted in January 2007 which provides the legal basis for Estonia to deal with this question.

The importance of the ‘Via Baltica’ motorway linking Helsinki and Warsaw by way of the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) in terms of improving the functioning of the EU internal market is beyond question.

Work on constructing the motorway has been halted by protests by Polish Greens, who claim that a bypass will devastate the unique natural environment of the Rospuda valley. The Commission has forbidden Poland from continuing work on constructing the motorway. The inhabitants of the Polish town of Augustów intend to block traffic if work is not continued.

What solution does the Commission propose, having forbidden the work in question? How much would it cost to draw up a new project, who would finance it and how much more time would it take to implement an alternative option?

(EN) As already indicated in its reply to oral questions H-0157/07 and H-0158/07⁽¹⁾, the Commission strongly supports the upgrading of road infrastructure in Poland, including along the Helsinki-Warsaw road corridor in the North-Eastern part of the country. It is essential however to achieve a proper balance between the objectives of enhancing transport infrastructure and ensuring protection of natural heritage.

The Commission does not have powers to decide on internal matters of a Member State, such as the construction of a specific project. However, in accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty, it is the Commission's duty to monitor the compliance with EC law.

With regard to the Augustow by-pass, the Commission has strong reasons to believe that the Polish authorities in the authorising procedures of the specific project have breached EC environmental law. Consequently, the Commission addressed a letter of formal notice (15 December 2006) to the Polish authorities requesting clarifications and subsequently a reasoned opinion (1 March 2007) asking Poland to comply with the provisions of EC environmental law. Having found the response of the Polish authorities unsatisfactory, the Commission decided on 21 March 2007 to refer the case to the Court of Justice.

With regard to specific questions on costs, timing and possible solutions for the Augustow by-pass, the Commission would like to emphasise that, according to the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is not in a position to impose on a Member State specific solutions or indicate costs.

If the project in question complies with EC law, it is eligible for EC funding.

According to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/RIA⁽¹⁾ of 13 June 2002, the purpose of the European arrest warrant is to enable a Member State to obtain the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

Does the Commission consider that the arrest warrant has been a success? How many people have been extradited, and how often has there been a refusal to extradite, as in the case of the former Danish SS officer Søren Kam, who is accused of murder in Denmark but whom the Regional Court in Bavaria, Germany, refused to surrender since the case was time-barred under German law? Can the Commission make any general statements about problems with the arrest warrant, as reflected for example in the above-mentioned case?

(FR) The European arrest warrant laid down by Council Framework Decision 2002/584/RIA⁽²⁾ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the framework decision’) is proving to be a growing success.

The framework decision has been transposed in the 27 Member States, and the volume of European arrest warrants issued each year continues to grow. On the basis of the available statistics, which are not yet complete, some indicative figures may be given. Thus, the number of European arrest warrants issued for 2005 is 6 800, that is, more than double the figure for 2004. Furthermore, no fewer than 1 700 people were arrested in 2005 on the basis of a European arrest warrant, 1 532 of whom were surrendered to the issuing Member State.

More than half of these people were surrendered with their consent, which meant that very short executing deadlines could be adhered to (on average 11 days after the arrest of the requested person). Even working on the assumption that the person does not consent to being extradited, the European arrest warrant is a remarkable advance in terms of speeding up his or her procedure since it takes place in just under five weeks on average, while an extradition procedure used to take one year on average from start to finish. The European arrest warrant has also made it possible for an increasing number of nationals to be extradited. Indeed, more than a fifth of the persons surrendered on the basis of a European arrest warrant were nationals or residents of the Member State that executed the European arrest warrant.

However, the proper functioning of the European arrest warrant is facing certain obstacles put in place by the Member States, obstacles that it still has to overcome.

The major difficulty is the possibility of surrendering a person who is a national of the executing Member State. Furthermore, a number of Member States have refused to submit to the partial abolition of the condition of dual criminality⁽³⁾, in accordance with the framework decision. A final point that has given rise to many problems during transposition is the list of grounds for optional non-execution laid down in Article 4 of the framework decision. Whereas some Member States have transposed all of the grounds for non-execution, elevating them to the rank of compulsory grounds for non-execution, other Member States have not deemed it necessary to transpose this article.

Thus, under German law, which has transposed Article 4(4) of the framework decision as a compulsory ground for non-execution, the executing judicial authority for Germany may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant, as in the case of Søren Kam, on the grounds that a criminal prosecution or sentence under German law is prescribed when the acts fall within its competence pursuant to the German implementing law even though the acts for which the requested person is being prosecuted could still result in a sentence in the issuing Member State.

Will the Commission confirm that no certification currently exists that will guarantee that tropical rainforests or peat lands in south-east Asia are not being destroyed in order to develop palm oil plantations either to supply the EU biofuels market or for food oil production displaced by demand for biofuels?

(EN) The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member' that no certification scheme currently exists. The Commission is preparing a legislative proposal that would lead to a big increase in consumption of biofuels in the EU, from around 3 million tons in 2005 to more than 30 million tons in 2020, and the Commission has announced that a sustainability scheme for biofuels will indeed form part of the legislative proposal.

The Commission is currently working on the design of this scheme. It aims to include in the scheme measures to deter the conversion of both tropical forest and peatlands for biofuel production, as well as measures to deter the use of production methods that are inefficient in greenhouse gas terms. These measures will apply to domestically produced biofuels as well as imported biofuels.

Clearly, putting such measures in place for raw materials used for the production of biofuels will not prevent the further conversion of tropical forest and peatlands for palm oil production for food and similar uses. However, the Commission hopes that by taking a leading role in this way, the energy sector will contribute to encouraging other users of palm oil to take similar action, building on existing voluntary initiatives such as the Roundtable on sustainable palm oil.

Other vegetable oils (especially rape oil) make better quality biofuel than palm oil. But the supply of these oils is likely to remain limited. Therefore, if the new legislative proposal were not accompanied by a sustainability scheme for biofuels, there would be a risk that it would supplement the pressure caused by growth in palm oil use and would make an additional contribution to the pressure on tropical forests and peatlands in South-East Asia.

Global palm oil production grew by more than 10 million tons (41%) between 2002/2003 and 2006/2007. In addition to food and other uses in a wide range of everyday products, bio-energy demand (not only from Europe) has contributed as well. Biofuels contributed for only a tiny proportion (30,000 tons in 2005). Growth in demand for food and household uses as well as for energy can be expected to continue. No mandatory certification exists at present that will guarantee that tropical rainforests or peatlands in South-East Asia are not destroyed for the production of palm oil, regardless of its use.

EU Directive 93/119/EC⁽¹⁾ clearly stipulates that in order to ensure animal welfare, farm animals must be killed in a way which avoids unnecessary suffering. There should be no avoidable excitement, pain or suffering during slaughter or killing and related operations, both inside and outside slaughterhouses.

Furthermore, ‘Stunning before slaughter is a statutory requirement in the EU (with exceptions in some Member States for religious slaughter) to induce unconsciousness and insensibility (inability to perceive stimuli) in animals, so that slaughter can be performed without avoidable fear, anxiety, pain, suffering and distress.’(European Food Safety Agency 2004)

How does the Commission justify the killing of 40 000 bulls in bullfights as this is manifestly in contravention of EU regulations on every count?

(EN) Slaughtering animals has always been an activity that raised legitimate concerns.

Directive 93/119/EC is effectively the EU legislation on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

However, Article 1 paragraph 2 of this Directive specifies that it does not apply “to animals killed in cultural or sport events”.

In addition the Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals, annexed to the Treaty, states that the Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of the animals while respecting religious rites, cultural traditions or regional heritages.

The welfare conditions under which bulls are killed in corridas are therefore currently not covered by Community law and the Commission has no possibility to act on this matter.

Eurostat's report of September 2006 on the EU's energy consumption notes that the EU is 56% dependent on imports for its energy supplies. (With certain reservations as to how biomass is to be assessed). After refinement and use, oil is classified as imported, whereas the energy generated from uranium after enrichment and use is classified as national production despite the uranium being imported. To obtain an accurate picture of import dependence, uranium should be included, which would increase import dependence to more than two-thirds. The Commission's Communication on energy policy, however, reports nuclear power as totally dependent on imports as a result of the uranium imports shown in the table in Annex 1. Moreover, there is a mistake in the Swedish version, which refers to 'nuclear safety' instead of 'nuclear power'.

In order to avoid giving a false impression of the import dependence of the EU and of nuclear power, will the Commission change its practice of classifying energy produced from uranium so that dependence on imported uranium is always clearly indicated?

(FR) Natural uranium is currently still being produced in two Member States (the Czech Republic and Romania), representing around 2% of the EU’s requirements. All of the other uranium mines in the EU have been closed because they were uncompetitive. Nevertheless, over the last few years, prices have been increasing substantially, which has meant that exploration projects have got under way in several Member States (Slovakia, Hungary, Sweden, Finland and Spain). Together with other internal sources of supply (reprocessing, re-enrichment, etc), import dependence in raw materials meets almost 85% of the EU’s needs.

The entire cost of fuel, this is to say, natural uranium, conversion, enrichment, manufacturing, including the financial reserves built up for the future management of irradiated fuel, currently represents between 25% and 30% of the cost of producing nuclear energy, 5% to 10% of which relates to these raw materials alone.

In financial terms, these imported raw materials therefore currently represent less than 10% of the costs of production. By way of comparison, the supply of gas represents between 75% and 85% of the corresponding cost of energy production.

Furthermore, the Union has industrial capacities that are appropriate and competitive for carrying out every other aspect of the industrial cycle of nuclear fuel production – a booming sector – both as an importer and an exporter.

Regarding the accounting principles used in the preparation of the Energy Balance Sheets, the Commission does not intend to change them.

The ‘Energy Balance Sheet’ of a country provides essential information allowing the evaluation of various dimensions of Energy Policy, including security of supply.

The accountancy system used in preparing the Energy balance sheets considers that nuclear energy (in the form of heat generated in a nuclear power station) is of indigenous origin.

The Commission and Member States consider nuclear energy as contributing positively to the energy security of supply in the case of supply disruptions or energy crisis because of the small volume of uranium ore involved and the possibility of storage, and thus not accounted for as imported nuclear energy.

In his letter of 14 February 2007 to Mrs Bozkurt, MEP (a copy of which was forwarded to me in my capacity as member of the 'contact group' for relations with the Turkish Cypriot community) Commissioner Figel' made a totally inapt reference to ‘Turkish-Cypriot universities', the usage encouraged at international level by Turkey, which is responsible for the military occupation of 40% of Cyprus, where it has created a puppet state, establishing pseudo universities on property stolen from Greek Cypriots.

How could an EU Commissioner use such a totally inapt designation, causing justified bitterness among those whose properties were stolen under the full protection of the Turkish occupying army - and were used as sites for pseudo universities in the occupied zone?

(EN) The use of the word "Turkish Cypriot universities" by Commissioner in charge of Education, Training, Culture and Youth was a reference to the "Turkish Cypriot Community", which is a generally recognised term, including in the text of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. It does not imply recognition of any public authority in the areas in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, other than the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

According to the Commission's information, the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) is recognised as a member of the European University Association (EUA) since April 2005 as well as the International Association of Universities (IAU) since November 2005

The question of the Honourable Member illustrates how urgent it is to reach a solution to the Cyprus problem. In line with its long-standing position, the Commission remains fully committed to supporting a resumption of the UN⁽¹⁾-led talks for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue as soon as possible.

On 22 February 2007 the management of the firm Delphi Automotive España S.L announced its intention to close its factory in Puerto Real (Cadiz province). This decision, which will affect 1600 jobs directly, and more indirectly, concerns an industrial enterprise playing a strategic role in the Bay of Cadiz. The announced measure is in breach of Delphi's agreements with the local authorities and workers' representatives, and is contrary to Spanish labour law: in the Industrial Plan signed in 2005, Delphi undertook to maintain its industrial activity and preserve the jobs concerned up to 31 December 2010.

Given the need to modernise the European economy on the basis of sustainable solutions grounded in sound macroeconomic policies, thus preserving the European social model, does the Commission intend to take any action to defend Delphi's employees?

Since the measures proposed in the Community programme for the Lisbon Strategy include specific measures relating to a number of key objectives, such as attracting more investment, facilitating employment and creating more and better jobs, will the Commission now agree to the disappearance of 1600 jobs directly and 2500 indirectly in the wake of the announced closure of the Delphi plant?

The Spanish region of Andalusia is currently affected by a severe crisis, with the announced closure of the firm Delphi Automotive España SL (Puerto Real, Cadiz province), which, in the course of its 26-year implantation in the region, has been the recipient of successive forms of aids and incentives for the preservation of its industrial activity and jobs.

The announcement of Delphi's closure is contrary to Spanish labour law and is in breach of the agreements in force between Delphi and the Andalusian regional government and the workers' representatives: in the Industrial Plan signed in 2005, Delphi undertook to maintain its industrial activity and preserve the jobs concerned up to 31 December 2010.

In view of the possible relocation of this enterprise and in the light of the support strategy for European industry and Parliament's report on relocations in the regional context, which stresses the need for a European strategy to combat relocations and the need to penalise rogue companies, does the Commission intend to take any action to stop the closure of Delphi and support the preservation of industrial activity and employment in the area?

(FR) The Commission is conscious of the negative impact that restructuring can have on the workers affected, their families and their region. However, it is not the responsibility of the Commission to interfere in the decision-making process within firms unless Community law has been violated.

In this respect, we must point out that the Community framework lays down many provisions relating to the justification and appropriate management of restructuring, in particular Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies⁽¹⁾, Directive 2001/23/EC on transfers of undertakings⁽²⁾, Directive 94/45/EC on European works councils⁽³⁾, Directive 2002/74/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer⁽⁴⁾, and Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees⁽⁵⁾.

On 21 and 22 March 2007, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities met with representatives from the province of Cadiz and from the region of Andalusia. On that occasion, he indicated the Commission’s willingness to help the competent national authorities check that Community rules were being complied with and his intention to send a letter to the firm Delphi with the aim of reminding it of its obligation to comply with the Community legislation in force. Finally, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities encouraged the Andalusian authorities to use the Structural Funds and, in particular, the European Social Fund, in order to increase investment in human capital and to improve the capacity for anticipating, and adapting to, change.

In connection with corporate responsibility principles, initiatives have been taken to establish 'fairer' and 'more sustainable' trade with developing countries. In particular, there is FLO, which guarantees minimum prices with the aim of improving the situation of producers. Recent initiatives such as Utz Kapeh and Rainforest Alliance aim to achieve sustainability in a free-market environment. In the coffee industry, there is the multi-stakeholder initiative 4C (Common Code for the Coffee Community), which came about at the suggestion of GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) and whose objective is sustainability in the mainstream coffee industry.

Has the Commission made a cost-benefit analysis of the financial assistance it has provided for such projects? If so, what were the main findings?

Apart from subsidies to organisations, has the Commission also provided financial assistance to projects in developing countries to promote fair/sustainable trade?

Can the Commission indicate whether it intends to treat new initiatives such as Utz Kapeh, Rainforest Alliance and 4C in the same way as the 'old' initiatives in its policy on subsidies?

(EN) The Commission has not undertaken any cost benefit analysis of the financial assistance that it has provided for projects which aim to achieve sustainability in a free market environment.

Fair Trade projects are financed through the intervention of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO). Several NGOs working on Fair Trade have received co-financing in recent years. By far the largest part of the projects is financed from the "Cofinancing with European NGOs" budgetline managed by EuropeAid. There are, however, also a few projects financed from DG Trade's budget. With regard to other sources of funding, this is currently difficult to identify as such as there are no projects focusing on Fair Trade only. For example, there is no specific information about Fair Trade support in “mainstream programmes” such as National and Regional Indicative programmes. There could be some funding in the context of rural development or agriculture. There may be Fair Trade components in larger projects but these are currently not identified separately and cannot hence be retrieved. Work is underway to expand the information system to allow for retrieval of Fair Trade projects.

The Commission does not have a different policy on providing assistance to new initiatives as compared to the policy that it has followed in providing assistance to old initiatives.

According to the Commission’s interpretation, can a Member State sell uranium mined on its territory, whether freely on the internal market or, for that matter, to buyers outside the EU, without violating the stipulations of the Euratom Treaty?

(EN) Sales of uranium mined in the Community are subject to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Euratom Treaty. All contracts for the sale/purchase of nuclear materials must be concluded, i.e. co-signed by the Euratom Supply Agency (established by Article 52 of the Euratom Treaty) if one of the Parties to the contract is established in the Community.

It was originally foreseen in the Euratom Treaty that producers of nuclear materials in the Community would offer their production to the Euratom Supply Agency, which would then allocate the materials between European consumers of such materials. However, the Euratom Supply Agency’s Rules⁽¹⁾, as amended⁽²⁾ − on how demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials − provide that producers and users of nuclear materials may freely negotiate their commercial contracts. Such contracts however must be submitted to the Euratom Supply Agency for co-signature.

The Euratom Supply Agency verifies that the contracts are not in contradiction with the Euratom Treaty, its secondary legislation, the international obligations of the Community or its supply policy. Sales of uranium mined in the Community to a legitimate user based also in the Community would not normally raise concerns, provided that the legal requirements are fulfilled. However, sales of uranium mined in the Community to a user outside the Community requires, according to Art. 59 of the Euratom Treaty, not only the co-signature of the Euratom Supply Agency but also an export authorisation issued by the European Commission. This provision is intended to ensure that in a possible situation of shortage of materials, Community users should have priority with regard to the Community production. In addition to the market situation, the country of destination and the intended use of the materials are taken into account when considering an export authorisation.

In addition, transactions involving nuclear materials must also comply with the safeguards obligations under Chapter VII of the Euratom Treaty, and failure to do so may result in sanctions imposed by the Commission.

Declaration 38 of the Amsterdam Treaty acknowledges the major contribution made by the voluntary sector and endeavours to encourage the European dimension thereof. The Rotary and Lions international associations are recognised by the UN, where they have permanent representation; they are non-profit-making bodies supported by funds contributed by their members and they operate throughout the world, supplementing other institutions' activities. In Italy's Imperia province the local office of the tax inspectorate has acquired lists of Rotary members for purposes possibly connected with the tax register.

Is the Commission thinking of examining the reasons which lie behind this initiative and of taking appropriate action in order to ensure not only that such ventures are nipped in the bud but also that more explicit and constructive recognition of voluntary associations in accordance with the Amsterdam Treaty Declaration is introduced within the EU?

(EN) The processing by voluntary associations of personal data of their members enters in the scope of Directive 95/46/EC⁽¹⁾. Access to the processed data by public authorities can only take place under the conditions laid down by this Directive (Article 13). Therefore the Commission suggests that as a first step the Honourable Member contact the Italian Data Protection Authority⁽²⁾, which has the power to investigate this issue and to take any necessary measures.

The scope and the content of Declaration 38, which asks the Community to encourage the European dimension of voluntary organisations, is unrelated to the practices of the Italian authorities mentioned by the Honourable Member.

It should nevertheless be noted that the Commission's 1997 Communication on Promoting the role of Voluntary Organisations and Foundations in Europe stresses the important role of volunteering.

The Commission does also encourage the European dimension of voluntary organisations as per Declaration 38 through the exchange of information and best practices supported by several community action programmes, for example the "Europe for Citizens" and "Youth in action" programmes.

Some Portuguese workers have already been sacked, and others laid off, by the UK Bernard Matthews company, one of the Norfolk companies affected by the avian flu virus, threatening some 400 to 500 workers with unemployment. The Bernard Matthews poultry farms employ hundreds of Portuguese workers.

What measures have been taken to prevent negative repercussions on the jobs of the workers on the poultry farms? What measures are being taken to guarantee the rights of Portuguese workers, specifically in the area of prevention, health and employment with rights?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the consequences this outbreak may have on the affected workers, their families and the region. In addition to government economic compensation the company may receive for business losses, EU-funded programmes may be used to assist workers who may be, or have been, made redundant, and in particular migrant workers from Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal and Spain, and companies facing closure, downsizing or restructuring.

The Commission understands that, following the drop in sales, 130 workers have been laid off on 20 February 2007 for a period of 20 days and 40 more on 27 February 2007. Workers who have been employed continuously for at least for one month have a statutory guarantee to receive five days of pay with an upper limit of £18.90 per day. Furthermore, the Bernhard Matthews company has agreed with the Transport and General Workers' Union to grant a one-off payment of £100 to each worker and talks between the company and the trade unions are ongoing. The Commission also recalls that companies must comply with United Kingdom legislation transposing relevant EU legislation on collective redundancies⁽¹⁾ and on the protection of employees in the event of insolvency⁽²⁾.

In addition to the general rules on the protection of workers' health and safety, including Directive 2000/54⁽³⁾ on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, specific measures have been taken to deal with this outbreak. A "bird flu advice" poster in English, Polish and Portuguese⁽⁴⁾ has been disseminated by the Norfolk County Council. Information on the situation and consequences of the H5N1 outbreak at Bernhard Matthews in Norfolk in 2007 and on workers' rights has been made available through government and union websites and helplines⁽⁵⁾. A worker protection advice⁽⁶⁾ has been released by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), recalling that employers have a legal obligation to protect their workers against health risks and to properly assess such risks. During an outbreak, DEFRA takes the necessary measures to provide workers with the necessary drugs and equipment.

Lastly, the Commission invites the honourable Member to refer to its response to parliamentary question H-0106/07 by Mr Hasse Ferreira⁽⁷⁾ on the same subject.

A debate has arisen in the media concerning the degree of detail in which the route of the Russo-German gas pipeline has already been decided. It has been claimed that European Parliament and Council Decision No 1364/2006/EC⁽¹⁾ of 6 September 2006 fixed its route.

Does the Commission consider that the route of the Russo-German gas pipeline has already been decided in detail in that decision? Furthermore, does the Commission consider that the pipeline absolutely has to follow an underwater route? Could it not just as well go overland, so that it can become a TEN-E project?

(EN) The Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) are integral to the European Union’s overall energy policy objectives, including reinforcing security of supply, increasing competitiveness and protecting the environment. Installing a new pipeline to deliver Russian gas to the United Kingdom and Northern Central Europe – including Germany, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium corresponds to the TEN-E priority axis NG1⁽²⁾ and the revised Guidelines for Trans-European energy networks ⁽³⁾ mentioned by the Honourable Member have selected it as one of the 10 gas Projects of European Interest.

The Commission takes the view that investment decisions, including optimal routing, whether underwater or on shore, have to be taken by the investors on the basis of their own commercial interests and judgements. Therefore the Commission does not express its preference for a particular project in this context. Due respect to environmental legislation and a political consensus with all parties involved is of course key for any Community involvement in the project. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being carried out under the UNECE⁽⁴⁾ Espoo Convention on EIA in a Trans-boundary Context with environmental information being submitted to the responsible environmental authorities of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Russia and Sweden. Information is also being provided to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Under the requirements of the Convention, public consultations will take place on the North European Gas Pipeline in accordance with national legislation in the countries involved. Finally, HELCOM⁽⁵⁾ has developed requirements on conducting environmental impact assessment that would also need to be taken into account.

The Commission has received no information as to the status of the investors' decision on the final routing of the North European Gas Pipeline (Nord Stream).

Would the Commission be willing to make a proposal to make ‘traffic light’ labelling of foods for sale compulsory across the Union?

(EN) The "traffic light" labelling of foods concerns voluntary systems for the representation of the nutritional composition of a food that have been introduced by Governments or individual companies.

If such labelling concerns the overall nutrient content of a product then the provisions of the recently adopted Regulation on nutrition and health claims made on food⁽¹⁾ need to be taken into account. This regulation only governs claims made on a voluntary basis, and it is limited to the communication of beneficial nutritional properties. The harmonisation of the use of a "traffic light" system across the Community is not foreseen in the legislation.

The "traffic light" systems are also being used in relation to individual nutrients. In which case, the Directive on nutrition labelling⁽²⁾ may need to be considered instead.

The review of the nutrition labelling legislation is a high priority for the Commission. There was a public consultation in 2006 and the results of this consultation are being considered. The issue of the possible presentation of information nutrient content on the front of pack, such as the traffic light systems, will be part of the considerations of the revision of the legislation. It is expected that the Commission will adopt a proposal around the end of 2007.

What efforts will the Commission make to establish links between the regions of the EU and counterparts in the developing world, so that the two can share expertise and let the developing regions benefit from our knowledge?

(EN) Local authorities in the EU and in developing countries are eligible to the range of EC external instruments, including the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the European Development Fund (EDF). It should be noted that the EC does not make a distinction between different layers of sub-national governments and refers to "local authorities" for all sub-national levels of governments - "regions" are therefore included in this term. Caution: the DCI (Art. 24) clearly, and for the first time, makes the distinction between countries, municipalities, provinces, departments and regions.

In this context there are opportunities to establish links between EU regions and their counterparts in developing countries through exchange of best practice and participation of EU regions in the implementation of programmes and projects. A number of initiatives are indeed under way, including for example:

Urb-Al, a regional programme intended for local authorities of Latin America and EU Member States which funded 188 projects and 13 networks. Approximately 500 local authorities participated in the programme. The EC is currently considering the creation in 2008 of a new programme whose themes, management methods and budget have yet to be determined.

Asia Urbs, a regional programme in Asia which financed 58 projects for an amount of €156 million. Asia Urbs was merged with the programme "Asia Wide" to create the programme "Asia Pro Eco" dedicated to urban environment and ecology in the same spirit of cooperation between Asia and EU local authorities.

Furthermore, the new thematic programme "Non-state actors and local authorities in development" (DCI article 14) aims at capacity building through support to "own" initiatives of eligible actors originating from the EU and from partner countries. In 2007, approximately €30 million has been earmarked for local authorities under the programme. Activities may include support to coordination, communication and exchange of experience between local authorities in Europe and their counterparts in partner countries.

Promoting co-operation between regional and local authorities of the EU and partner countries is an important objective of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Particular attention has been paid in that context to Cross Border Co-operation. The newly adopted European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) includes a vastly improved Cross Border co-operation component. This will allow financing joint projects aimed at fostering sustainable development, addressing common challenges, improving border management and promoting people to people exchanges. Under that component 15 co-operation programmes are established covering the land and maritime borders between EU and neighbouring countries and involving the relevant border regions. The total budget for this component will be € 1.1 billion for 7 years.

In addition, ENPI will also fund a small programme for cooperation between local and regional authorities in the partner countries and the EU, building on the experience of programmes such as the Tacis Institution Building Partnership Programme, Tacis City Twinning and MED-PACT under MEDA⁽¹⁾. This will allow also co-operation among actors which are not located in border regions.

Finally, regional and local authority may also be supported in the context of country and regional programmes where this is relevant for achieving the objectives of the programmes.

On 26 October 2006, the Nicaraguan Parliament approved an amendment to Article 165 of the Criminal Code, tightening up the law on abortion. Acting on the instructions of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations, Francesca Mosca asked the Speaker of Parliament to halt the parliamentary procedure. Marc Litvine, a Commission official in Brussels, stated that the EU regarded the authorisation of abortion as an element in the fight against poverty.

What is the legal basis for Mrs Ferrer-Waldner's threat to halt European development aid in order to bring about a change in a third country's abortion law? On what basis does Mr Litvine announce positions on abortion as an 'ambassador of the European Commission'? To what extent are the views expressed by a European official binding on the EU institutions, Member States and third countries?

(EN) The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question and would like to underline that the information mentioned by the Honourable Member is not accurate and does not reflect at all the position of the Commission and its representatives. None of the above officials has made any declaration or expressed views regarding abortion.

The Commission does not assume any positions in favour or against abortion, due to the fact that there is no community legislation in this respect.

The Commission has only expressed its preoccupation as to Nicaragua’s compliance with some of its international commitments in the framework of some essential conventions related to human rights, particularly the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as regards notably the right to health and access to medical care.

The letter to the Speaker of the Nicraguan Parliament mentioned in the question is a common letter prepared by the United Nations Representative and co-signed by Head of Mission of all member States representatives (the German development Minister sent a personal letter) and other bilateral donors and almost all Resident-representative of International Organizations. The letter only asks for debating the criminalization of therapeutic abortion, nothing else, and may in no way be construed as a threat.

Australia and Chile are proposing to ban the sale of traditional light-bulbs in four years' time, which is expected to yield an energy saving of 66% for households. According to some sources, the world could save € 51 bn per annum in electricity costs and CO2 emissions would fall by 273 m tons if a worldwide ban were introduced.

In its communication of 10 January 2007⁽¹⁾, the Commission announced various measures to limit CO2 emissions, inter alia by reducing CO2 emissions from transport, using renewable energy sources and making buildings energy-efficient. In the conclusions of the Spring Summit of 9 March 2007, the European Council asks the Commission to submit proposals for more stringent measures to improve the energy efficiency of street-lights and lights in offices and homes. Can the Commission inform me what view it takes of the possibility of a European ban on traditional light-bulbs, particularly as large producers and the European Council would support such a proposal? What other measures are planned and what is the timetable?

(EN) The Commission is aware of the substantial energy saving potential related to household lighting.

Under the Eco-design Directive⁽²⁾, the Commission is examining 20 product groups (including lighting) in order to improve their overall environmental performance, with special attention to their energy efficiency. In this framework, it will be possible to the Commission to set mandatory requirements on products that would exclude the less performing products from the European market. In the case of domestic lighting, requirements on energy efficiency could lead in practice to a phasing out of inefficient incandescent lamps (not necessarily to banning the incandescent lamp technology as a whole).

Most of the studies providing the technical and economic input to set out ecodesign requirements are going to finish in 2007 for 15 product groups, allowing adoption of measures by the Commission from 2008 onwards. First draft measures are expected to be issued for stakeholder consultation before the end of 2007, including on street lighting and office lighting. Studies for further measures will be launched in the next weeks, including one on domestic lighting, and could lead to the adoption of measures as early as 2009, eventually phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs, if appropriate.⁽³⁾

The domestic lighting study will also examine other technologies to determine whether they could be valid alternatives to conventional incandescent light bulbs, such as efficient halogene lights, compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs⁽⁴⁾.

Some measures on efficiency of lighting are already in place. Council and Parliament Directive 2000/55/EC⁽⁵⁾ provides for energy efficiency requirements on ballasts for fluorescent lighting. Since 1998, a Commission Directive⁽⁶⁾ requires the display of the EU energy label on the packaging of household lamps pointing out incandescent lamps to consumers as particularly bad performers. However, while very effective for other appliances, the label did not succeed in pulling the market towards a major market share for economic lamps. This seems to be related to the high difference in purchase price for consumers, and also to aesthetic and performance considerations.

The Commission conducted research in 2006 on "Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU", including an in-depth review of existing policies and programmes at national level in half of all Member States.⁽⁷⁾ The vast majority of Member States have launched actions, mostly consisting of promotional campaigns addressed to consumers and involving different market actors, aimed at spreading the use of energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps replacing conventional incandescent lamps.

In its communication on reforming the wine sector – COM(2006)0319 final – the Commission proposes putting an end to market support measures in the form of distillation, because they ‘serve as a permanent outlet sustaining an unsaleable surplus’, without differentiating between crisis distillation and distillation for consumption, which does have a genuine market outlet and costs the Community budget significantly less. Far from encouraging the creation of surpluses, this distillation absorbs 12 million hectolitres of wine per year, over half of it from Spain. Eliminating it would have an extremely harmful effect on those who traditionally buy it for manufacturing brandy and sherry, which account for over 3 million hectolitres of wine alcohol. The rise in costs to producers would be of the order of EUR 50 million per year, which would lead many of them to seek their suppliers in third countries and even relocate their production. This would lead to the immediate creation of a genuine surplus in the market and subsequently lead to the forced abandoning of vineyards in many Spanish regions where there is no alternative crop, a development bringing grave environmental risks in its wake.

With regard to the submission of the legislative proposal, has the Commission planned to change its starting point with regard to distillation for consumption?

Does it intend to draw up a study assessing the impact of suppressing the support measures in question?

(EN) In its Communication on the reform of the wine sector, the Commission indeed suggested that financial support for the distillation of wine into potable alcohol should be abolished. This was done for two main reasons. Firstly, as it is the case for all subsidised distillation measures both the short term market clearance and the income support provided by them favour surplus production in the long term. Secondly, a substantial part of this distillation will take place independently of any subsidies.

The Commission is still considering all the arguments advanced by stakeholders and in particular those of the own initiative report and resolution adopted by the Parliament on 15 February 2007⁽¹⁾. A final decision on what will be proposed for the reform of the wine sector has not yet been taken. However, the impact of each element of this upcoming proposal will be thoroughly assessed in the accompanying impact assessment report.

Recently in Frankfurt, a court refused to hear the case of a German national of Moroccan origin living in Germany who was suing her Moroccan husband for divorce on grounds of domestic violence (threat to her life). The judge refused to hear the case for possible divorce within a period of less than one year pursuant to Article 1565 of the Civil Code. The judge stated that since the two parties were of Moroccan origin, the relevant Article could not be applied as the behaviour of the husband was not contrary to the practice of the Koran.

What is the Commission's view of such a violation of the fundamental rights of a national of a Member State of the EU and the failure to apply and provide justice pursuant to the relevant national legislation and the Community acquis? Does it agree that this dimension should be examined in greater detail in the context of the dual process of integration of immigrants (respect for the rights of immigrants - respect for the rules and values of the Member States)?

The last Annual Report on Immigration and Integration⁽¹⁾ makes no reference to the subject of domestic violence, crimes of honour, forced marriages and other discrimination faced by immigrant women. Will the Commission examine and include these subjects in its next annual report?

(EN) Gender equality is a fundamental right and a common value of the European Union and jurisprudence or practices that discriminate against women cannot be accepted. The Commission is committed to eliminate any kind of discrimination against women and to promote equality between men and women in all its activities. Gender equality is therefore actively promoted in the various Commissions' policies, including the fight against violence against women and immigration and integration.

The Commission has undertaken many initiatives to combat violence against women from various angles, including human rights, trafficking, migration, crime prevention, gender equality and public health, and by using different policies and financial instruments. One example is the Roadmap for equality between women and men (2006-2010) which identifies the eradication of gender-based violence as one of the six priority areas. The "Daphne" Programme, established in 1997, is another key element of the Commission's commitment to combat violence against women. The Programme supports projects to tackle all forms of gender-based violence from the point of view of prevention, protection, support and rehabilitation. The "Daphne" Programme will be reinforced in the future to allow the Commission to strengthen its combat against violence.

The Honourable Member asks for the Commission's view of a recent court case in which a German judge seems to have interpreted the German law on divorce in the light of certain provisions of the Koran. However, the Commission must inform the Honourable Member that it is not able to intervene in judicial proceedings in the Member States where no Community law is applicable.

This shows the need for clear rules on the question of applicable law to divorce where the current lack of common rules leads to legal uncertainty and the risk of "forum shopping" for the many thousands of "international couples" who divorce each year in the European Union. To remedy these shortcomings, the Commission adopted a proposal on 17 July 2006 which is currently under negotiation. The proposal does not harmonise the national laws on divorce, which remain diverse for cultural and historical reasons, but establishes common rules to determine the applicable law in matters of divorce and legal separation. The main objective of the proposal is to create legal certainty and enable couples to know in advance which law that will apply to their divorce proceeding. It gives the spouses a limited possibility to choose the applicable law subject to certain procedural safeguards to ensure that both spouses are aware of the consequences of their choice. In the absence of choice, the applicable law would be determined on the basis of a common rule based in the first place on the habitual residence of the spouses. A couple living in Germany would consequently be subject to German divorce law unless they have chosen another law. In order to avoid situations such as the one described by the Honourable Member, the Commission has included a so-called public policy clause in its proposal. This rule allows a court to refuse to apply foreign law, partly or entirely, if such application is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the forum State. A court of a Member State could invoke this clause if it considers that the application of the law of a certain law, e.g. a law inspired by sharia law, is against its public policy. The Commission believes that such public policy clauses, which are traditionally used in private international law instruments, are appropriate tools to deal with this type of situations.

In reference to the question of Honourable Member on integration as a two-way process, the Commission wishes to clarify that this concept was put forward in November 2004 by the Council in the context of Common Basic Principles on Integration. The Commission developed this notion in its Common Agenda for Integration published in September 2005. The Common Basic Principle no 1 states that integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States.

Finally, the Annual Reports on Migration and Integration have been published by the Commission following an invitation by the 2003 Thessaloniki European Council 'to present an Annual Report on Migration and Integration in Europe, in order to map EU-wide migration data, immigration and integration policies and practices'. The Commission issued its first Annual Report in 2004, second one in 2006 and the third Annual Report on Migration and Integration is foreseen for second semester 2007. The forthcoming Report, alike the previous one, will be based to a large extent on replies of Member States to a Commission questionnaire concerning various aspects of integration policies and developments, including equal rights, common values, anti-discrimination, the position of women, etc. This methodology will enable the Commission to take stock of recent developments in integration policies and programmes.

The embargo on exports of Polish foodstuffs, including meat, to the Russian market has been in place for one and a half years now, causing losses amounting to hundreds of millions of euros among Polish food producers. The lack of access to the Russian meat market has also led to a massive fall in the market price for pigs in Poland, which has placed several hundred thousand Polish farmers in financial difficulties.

On 30 March 2007 the Commission forwarded a report to Russia, setting out replies to all of the reservations that Russia has expressed to date with regard to Polish meat exports to the Russian market and stating that, on the basis of the information provided, Russia should lift the embargo. However, after considering the matter for no more than two days, Russia deemed the information provided to be insufficient and is now proposing to the Commission that a further inspection of Polish meat processing plants be carried out.

All the events that have occurred in connection with this matter over the past eighteen or so months have made it increasingly clear that the Russian embargo on Polish foodstuffs is purely political in nature. Accordingly, will the Commission stand by its position, and is it willing to demand that Russia bring and end to this dispute with Poland in connection with the negotiations on Russian accession to the World Trade Organisation?

(EN) The Commission attaches paramount importance to title lifting of the Russian ban on Polish exports of meat and plant products. The Commissioners in charge of Health and Trade have regularly made this clear to their Russian counterparts. The Commission maintains its position that the Russian bans on Polish exports of meat and plant products were disproportionate and therefore need to be lifted without any further delay.

In the meeting between Commissioner in charge of Health and Mr Gordeyev, the Russian Minister of Agriculture, in January 2007, Russia and the EU committed to a number of actions and thus entered a process of getting the bans lifted. As a part of that process, Russia carried out inspections in Poland in February 2007. The Commission, together with the Polish authorities, accompanied the Russian inspectors on that occasion. They also eventually prepared a comprehensive response to the comments of the Russian side regarding what was inspected. This response was sent to Russia on 29 March 2007. In their reply of 11 April 2007 regarding veterinary issues, the Russian authorities acknowledged actions taken by Poland to address the issues raised as a result of the Russian veterinary inspection. They also posed certain additional questions to which the Commission replied in close cooperation with the Polish authorities. Finally, the Russian authorities offered new joint inspections as a step towards lifting the ban on meat products. The Russian response to phytosanitary issues is still awaited.

The Commission's efforts at the political level are also continuing. Following discussions at the highest level between the Commission, the EU Presidency and Poland on 3 April 2007, Poland gave a positive signal by lifting its reserve on the negotiating directives for the new EU-Russia framework agreement, a move welcomed by the Commission, The Commission then continued its efforts to ensure that this leads to the lifting of the bans and agreement to launch negotiations for the new Agreement.

Against this background, the Commissioner for Health met the Russian Minister of Agriculture, Mr Gordeyev on 21 and 22 April 2007 and entered into a new round negotiation concerning the Polish exports' meat and plant ban. Regrettably, these negotiations did not lead to the desired outcome as the Russian side was not willing to proceed with lifting the import ban on Polish meat and plants. Both sides agreed to continue working together towards a solution.

This issue also forms part of the SPS⁽¹⁾ discussions within Russia's World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession negotiations. Clearly, the absence of a satisfactory solution, or a satisfactory package, on this issue may have an impact on Russia's WTO accession.

Can the European Commission state what financial support the EU has given the people of Palestine in the year 2006 and what is the likely indicative level of financial support that will be given by the European Union to the people of Palestine in the year 2007?

(EN) The European Union (EC and Member States) provided nearly €700 million in support of the Palestinian people in 2006. €340 million was provided from the Community budget. In view of the prevailing conditions during 2006, most of this support was provided for emergency and humanitarian actions to help relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people in the wake of the socio-economic crisis. Support was mainly provided for humanitarian actions, to the Palestine refugees through UNRWA⁽¹⁾, and through the Temporary International Mechanism (TIM). The TIM, set up by Member States and the Commission, has been providing support to ensure the continued provision of essential utilities to the Palestinian population and has also paid social allowance payments to vulnerable and poor Palestinians.

At this stage it is too early to estimate with great accuracy the level of aid to be provided by Member States to Palestinians in 2007. The Commission has already planned total aid for an amount of €256 million for 2007. Most of this will be channelled through the TIM (€100 million) and UNRWA (€73 million). This amount includes also €43 million for humanitarian actions and €28 million for food aid and food security. Further decisions may be taken as the political and economic situation develops, and taking into account the needs.

Can the European Commission make a statement outlining what measures have been introduced at an EU level to lower and eliminate roaming charges to date within the European Union? Can the European Commission outline the success or otherwise of these measures in terms of achieving their objective of lowering costs of using mobile phones for EU consumers?

(EN) The Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on roaming on 12 July 2006. This proposal, which aimed to considerably reduce the charges consumers have to pay for using their mobile phone abroad, was submitted to the Parliament and to the Council on 20 July 2006.

The Parliamentary Committees have voted on the proposal in March and April 2007. The ECON⁽¹⁾ Committee vote took place on 21 March 2007 while the IMCO⁽²⁾ and CULT⁽³⁾ Committees voted on the following day. The ITRE⁽⁴⁾ Committee voted and delivered its opinion on 12 April 2007. The Parliament is scheduled to vote on the proposal in plenary session in May and the Council will consider this measure on 7 June 2007.

The Commission will be monitoring the results of the regulation extremely carefully in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation when it enters into force.

Can the European Commission make a statement as to the exact status of a special area of conservation in Crosswood Bog in Athlone, County Westmeath in Ireland? The special area of conservation number is SAC 002337. Is it the case that a derogation exists for this bog until the year 2008 or is it until the year 2015? This is a very emotive issue for the local community who want to know for how long they are permitted to cut turf on this bog.

(EN) The Commission can confirm that an area called Crosswood Bog has been formally proposed by Ireland for protection under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora⁽¹⁾. The site is of European conservation importance because it contains an active raised bog, which is a priority habitat type under this directive.

This site was included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, adopted by Commission Decision of 7 December 2004⁽²⁾. It is therefore subject to the protection safeguards defined in Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. As such Ireland is required to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of the raised bog habitat.

Responsibility for the protection and management of Crosswood Bog in the context of obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC rests with the Irish authorities, who must establish the necessary conservation measures for the site. A derogation from the protection requirements of the Directive has neither been sought by Ireland nor granted by the Commission.

The Commission would be concerned if there was uncontrolled turf cutting at this site as peat extraction represents one of the main activities that can cause damage to this habitat. This especially applies to large scale commercial peat extraction which, together with associated drainage works, can cause serious disruption to the hydrological and ecological functioning of the bog.

However, it is for the Irish authorities to make decisions in accordance with the Directive on particular peat extraction proposals and activities so as to ensure the achievement of the overall requirement of avoiding deterioration of the active raised bog at Crosswood Bog.

The reduction in ships' crews, the allocation of multiple tasks to the crew, including taking part in loading and unloading, the increase in daily working time to 12-14 hours under harsh conditions is typical of the hard, unhealthy and dangerous work performed by seafarers. The proposal by the Commission and the governments of the EU to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to issue certificates of proficiency to seafarers performing multiple duties, with a single certificate for those performing the duties of captain, engineer and other specialists - 'Comprehensive Review of the STCW Convention and the STW Code', STW 38/2/4-14/11/2006 - devalues seafarers' training, intensifies their work, multiplies the dangers to their safety and lives and has a negative impact on the environment. The sinking of the 'Sea Diamond' on 5 April 2007 off Santorini, the running aground of the 'Napoli' off the coast of the United Kingdom, the collision between the freighter 'Susan Borchard' and the hydrofoil, the 'Segesta Jet', off Messina in Italy, etc. confirm these views.

What are the Commission's views on increasing the number of crew and the working hours of seafarers on the basis of the actual requirements of ships? Given the opposition of seafarers' unions, will the Commission, together with the governments of the Member States, call for the withdrawal of the above proposal by the IMO? Is it possible to continue applying the dangerous rules governing the construction of passenger boats, coastal and tourist vessels, which cram in thousands of passengers without the necessary facilities for their safe disembarkation in the event of danger or having to abandon ship?

(FR) The Commission notes the concerns expressed by the honourable Member regarding the working time of crews, but would like to highlight the fact that, for eight years, the Community has been equipped with specific legislation on the duration of working time of seafarers⁽¹⁾ and has introduced specific measures on the monitoring of that legislation in European ports⁽²⁾.

The directive on seafarers, for example, stipulates that the standard working time is, in principle, eight hours per day, although a maximum number of working hours (not exceeding 14 hours for every 24 hour period) is possible. The directive also specifies that the determination of ships’ crew must take account of the need to prevent or restrict, as far as possible, an excessive duration of working time. Employers must keep a register of seafarers’ daily working hours, in order to comply with these provisions.

The responsibility for monitoring the stringent application of these rules obviously rests with the Member States.

With regard, more generally, to seafarers’ working conditions, the Commission attaches a great deal of importance to the swift ratification and implementation of the ILO Convention⁽³⁾ on maritime labour standards, including, of course, in Europe, and this, by means of an agreement between social partners, an agreement that is currently under negotiation.

On the subject of the revision of the STCW Convention⁽⁴⁾ undertaken by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the joint submission made in this context by the Member States and the Commission, it should be clarified that this submission has the sole aim, at this stage of proceedings, of suggesting subjects that could be included in this revision. In this context, subjects that could be examined include the possibility of a better distribution between crew members of actual navigation duties and duties that are more administrative in nature. No position has yet been decided on regarding this subject.

The Commission does not support the honourable Member’s assertion that the current rules governing the construction of passenger boats, established at international level, are dangerous. In any case, the Commission is monitoring very closely the discussions under way at the IMO on the development of these rules.

The European Parliament was granted increased scrutiny over the implementation of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and is prepared to play an active role in the implementation of Community external assistance.

When will the draft annual action programmes of EC assistance to ENPI countries be communicated to the European Parliament?

The Commission is at present preparing a non-paper on the governance facility. How will the Commission ensure that the governance facility will reward progress made on human rights, the rule of law and democratic reforms, and not the conclusion of free trade and readmission agreements?

The Commission is also preparing a non-paper on the Neighbourhood Investment Fund, which should be ready by mid-April. Will the Commission ensure that EU environmental and social standards apply to the projects financed under the Neighbourhood Investment Fund?

(EN) The Commission and the Parliament met in December 2006 for an exchange of views on the draft country and regional strategy papers. The Commission has received Parliament observations and will take due account of them in the implementation of the assistance.

Whilst this action fulfils the Commission commitment (under the inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management) for dialogue on the strategy papers, exchanges between the Parliament and the Commission will continue through established channels. The Commission will automatically send to the Parliament through the Comitology Register the Annual Action Programmes at the same time as they are sent for opinion to the ENPI⁽¹⁾ Committee. These documents are currently under preparation and will become available in the coming months.

The Governance Facility will provide additional support, to those partner countries having made most progress in implementing the agreed reform agenda set out in the Action Plan. The assessment will look primarily at Political governance and in particular at the implementation of the Action Plan specific chapter on “Enhanced political dialogue and reform”. Progress on other governance related aspects of the Action Plans will also be taken into account.

The Neighbourhood Investment Fund (NIF) is aimed at supporting investments in Neighbouring countries from Development Finance institutions such as EIB (European Investment Bank) and the EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). In line with the provisions of the ENPI Regulation, the Commission will ensure that the investments projects supported by the NIF comply with environmental standards and are coherent with EU policies including in the environmental and social sectors. In addition both of these institutions are signatories to the European Principles for the Environment⁽²⁾.

In order to find a compromise for a second reading agreement on Reach, the three institutions agreed on the wording of a Commission declaration covering the EP amendments on tobacco additives. These amendments originally found broad support in Parliament’s first reading and again in the second reading vote in the Environment Committee. It was understood that the agreed wording would be part of the legal text. However, no reference to this declaration has been made in the text published in the OJ (L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1), nor has the agreed wording since been published.

Does the Commission regard this declaration as a real commitment and binding? If so, why has it not been published? If not, can the Commission explain the political relevance of such a declaration?

Will the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) test for the chemicals in tobacco smoke, as part of their authorisation of any chemical additives to be included in tobacco products?

(EN) The Commission’s declaration on tobacco additives is not part of the text of the REACH Regulation⁽¹⁾. Together with the other declarations made on this Regulation, it is included in the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Council of 18 December 2006 at which REACH was adopted⁽²⁾. The inclusion of such declarations in the minutes of relevant Council meetings is in accordance with normal practice.

While the declarations are not published in the Official Journal, they are publicly available on the website of the Council: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st16/st16908-ad01.en06.pdf

(REACH is item 30, the tobacco declaration starts on page 16).

The Commission fully adheres to the commitments made in this declaration. In that context, it is recalled that such commitments mainly relate to the work to be carried out under the Tobacco Products Directive⁽³⁾, and the emphasis in the declaration on the burden of proof on industry in relation to the health effects of the contents and emissions of tobacco products.

As far as REACH is concerned, the declaration underlines the fact that ingredients are covered in the REACH Regulation like any other chemical substances and that some of their effects in burnt form should be covered by any required chemical safety assessments.

Under the REACH Regulation, it is not the role of the Agency as such to carry out tests, whether for chemicals in tobacco smoke or for any other purpose. By contrast, it is the responsibility of the concerned company to do any necessary testing in the context of preparing its registration. The Agency may assess the test data and require, if need be, additional testing in the context of the evaluation phase.

The municipal water supply and sewerage company for the Greater Volos area has made a number of unlawful dismissals. The company initially recruited a number of workers, including two trade unionists, on contracts for an indefinite period, but subsequently dismissed the trade unionists without even paying them the legally required redundancy pay. These dismissals are unlawful and abusive because (a) they are contrary to Law 1264/82 which gives trade unionists special protection against dismissal, (b) it is not illegal to take part in trade union activity, and (c) members of the administration of a trade union organisation cannot be given notice of dismissal.

Does the Commission condemn the dismissal and persecution of trade unionists by companies as an illegal and undemocratic act? Will it take measures to ensure that the two trade unionists are reinstated with all the rights and obligations provided for under labour law?

(EN) The Commission would like to recall that the European Community does not have any competence concerning the right of association.

However, in its Bosman ruling, the Court of Justice ruled that “freedom of association, […] enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights […] which are protected in the Community legal order”.

Furthermore, Article 12 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association, in particular in trade unions matters. The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers contains a similar provision (section 13)⁽¹⁾.

However, the Commission does not have the competence to take action against individual companies which would be in breach of the right of association. It is for national authorities, and in particular courts, to ensure compliance with national rules governing the right of association and general principles of Community law.

There is no Community legislation on individual dismissals. However, a number of Community Directives provide for the protection of workers' representatives in certain cases, and notably Directive 94/45/EC on European Works Councils⁽²⁾, Directive 2002/14/EC on a general framework for informing and consulting employees⁽³⁾ and Directive 2001/23/EC on transfer of undertakings⁽⁴⁾.

It has been scientifically demonstrated that the use of outdated technologies in urban networks (presence of asbestos in trolley buses and rails and high-voltage transformers containing chemical substances such as clophene) causes diseases such as cancer, deformities, etc., posing a serious threat to the health of millions of workers and passengers.

What will the Commission do to ensure that ageing and dangerous equipment and infrastructures are immediately withdrawn and replaced in urban centres and, more generally, in the transport sector?

(EN) Public health is a key priority in the EU and the Commission is aware of this serious issue in relation to various dangerous materials that were used for (old) means of public transport. The public authorities owning these types of transport equipment and infrastructure should renew them in compliance with appropriate national regulations.

The issues of withdrawing and replacing equipment and infrastructure are, as such, outside the scope of the Construction Product Directive⁽¹⁾. Indeed, the objective of this Directive is to ensure correct product information is provided with regard to the nature of the product, the intended use(s) for which the product can be applied, and the characteristics concerning product performance with a view to them being placed on the market. It does not concern the replacement of these products due to their obsoleteness and non compliance with health safety and public health requirements. The Member States remain responsible for ensuring that building and civil engineering works on their territories are designed and executed, and the construction products used are fit for this use, incorporated, assembled, applied or installed, and maintained, in a way that does not compromise safety, health and the environment, and other issues of public interest protection. Member States must bring into force, upgrade and enforce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to observe this responsibility.

As regards the protection of the health and safety of workers against the risks arising from exposure to asbestos or chemical substances, it should be noted that Framework Directive 89/391/EEC⁽²⁾, its individual Directives 98/24/EC⁽³⁾ on chemical substances and 2004/37/EC⁽⁴⁾ on carcinogens and mutagens and Directive 83/477/EEC⁽⁵⁾ on asbestos, are applicable.

In this context, employers shall carry out a proper risk assessment and adopt adequate preventive and protection measures, in particular reduction and replacement of the hazardous and/or carcinogenic substances.

EU Directives have to be transposed in national law and it is up to the competent national authorities to properly enforce the national rules on health and safety of workers.

On 9 March at the Brussels Summit, European heads of government signed the decision in support of energy policy which describes the construction of the Nabucco pipeline as the Union's most important gas project. From the point of view both of the security of energy supply and of diversification of transit facilities and sources of supply, the construction of the pipeline, with a capacity of 30 billion cubic metres per annum, could represent a huge gain for the European Union, which faces challenges in the field of energy.

As the Nabucco project currently has no real competitor as a way of expanding the EU's sources of natural gas, what form of aid will the Commission provide in order to ensure that the Nubucco gas pipeline is built as soon as possible? What is the Commission's preliminary timetable for the realisation of the project? In comparison with other projects to supply Europe with gas, how does the Commission rate the probability of the construction of the Nabucco pipeline? How will the Commission ensure that the project receives uniform European support?

(EN) The Nabucco pipeline has been identified as 'Project of European interest' in the Guidelines for Trans-European energy networks ⁽¹⁾. Therefore it can benefit from the highest possible support under the TEN-E provisions. The Commission will shortly appoint, in agreement with the Member States concerned, and after having consulted the Parliament, a European coordinator for this project to assure that the project advances at an optimum speed, support is properly coordinated and possible difficulties are overcome without delay.

The Commission is, however, not in a position to steer the timetable of projects itself as it is not the 'owner' of the project. The appointment of a European co-ordinator and the possibility for granting financial aid under Council Regulation No 2236/95⁽²⁾ will however contribute to the swift progress of the project. The construction is scheduled to start end of 2008 and the pipeline should enter into operation by 2010-2011.