Precio del dólar en méxico día de hoy

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given by a European Union institution

(/C /01)

Contents

E/14 by Josefa Andrés Barea to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the Ciudad de Cremona School in Valencia, Spain

E/14 by Raül Romeva i Rueda and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Prohibition on the commercial exploitation of the ICTINEU 3 submersible, of the firm ICTINEU Submarins S.L., financed with FEDER and EU Cohesion funds

E/14 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: Spanish fishermen penalised for illegal fishing

E/14 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: EU-Mozambique fisheries agreement

P/14 by Esther Herranz García to the Commission

Subject: Imports of contaminated citrus fruit from South Africa

P/14 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: Citrus black spot

E/14 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Iran's nuclear programme

E/14 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Situation in Venezuela

E/14 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Position of Catherine Ashton regarding United Nations Resolution 37/

E/14 by Thomas Ulmer to the Commission

Subject: Commission Recommendation of 24 September  on the audits and assessments performed by notified bodies in the field of medical devices

E/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Uganda

E/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Anti-corruption report

E/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Repatriation agreements

E/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Blood donations

E/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Burden of bureaucracy

E/14 by Patrizia Toia to the Commission

Subject: Environmental situation in Villaggio Ambrosiano

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New methodology to assess the quality and origin of olive oil

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New discoveries in the field of nuclear fusion

P/14 by Michael Theurer to the Commission

Subject: Draft Bulgarian law on the National Audit Office

E/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Poverty, homelessness and a new property bubble

E/14 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: ‘Sponsorship’ for young people at the start of their careers

E/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: Summary expulsion of immigrants to Morocco

E/14 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Fresh bombing of Lebanon by Israel

E/14 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Inclusion of farm-gate prices as a measure to prevent unfair trading practices in the food supply chain

E/14 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Current impediments to habitual use in one EU country of cars registered in another EU country

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Delays in implementing the integrated cross-border protection scheme for the Prespa Lakes

E/14 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Caravans

E/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Charter flights and passenger protection

E/14 by Peter van Dalen to the Commission

Subject: Norwegian Air International

E/14 by Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska to the Commission

Subject: Lack of translations from English to other official EU languages of key documents in the Erasmus+ section of the Commission's website

E/14 by Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska and Bogusław Sonik to the Commission

Subject: The Commission's intentions relating to perinatal care as part of the Health for Growth programme

E/14 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Iraqi security forces target insurgents' wives

E/14 by Eva Ortiz Vilella and Pablo Arias Echeverría to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of the ‘Triman’ logo

E/14 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Renewable energies

E/14 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Gesine Meissner to the Commission

Subject: Eurovignette and possible current distortions in the single market

E/14 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Gesine Meissner to the Commission

Subject: Eurovignette as a means to consolidate public finance

E/14 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Gesine Meissner to the Commission

Subject: Eurovignette transposition

E/14 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Normalisation of ties between Israel and Turkey

E/14 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Death of Arab-Iranian poet Hashem Shaabani Nejad

P/14 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Switzerland's exclusion from the Erasmus+ programme

P/14 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Erasmus+ negotiations with Switzerland

E/14 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Concern for the defence of human rights in Venezuela

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Pollution from the abandoned Medet, Elshitza and Tzar Asen copper mines in the Sredna Gora Mountains, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Illegal operation of cyanide-leaching installation Kardjali, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Ambient air pollution in Plovdiv, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Violation of EU legislation by adopting the EIA of the planned gold mine in Breznik, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Unregulated state aid from Bulgaria to Dundee Precious Metals, a Canadian-based mining company

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Plans for the Jessica-funded construction of a second rowing channel in Plovdiv, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Inadequate fines for polluting installations in Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Dangerous and ageing waste depot in Pazardjik municipality, Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Bulgaria's designation of a needed Natura  zone in the Rila Mountains for the protection of the brown bear delayed seven years

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Commission investigation into forest land swap deals at Kom Peak, Perelik Peak and the Kamchia river mouth in Bulgaria

E/14 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Waste depot in the village of Tzalapitza, Bulgaria

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Non-discrimination against women in neighbouring Mediterranean countries in the context of the Union for the Mediterranean

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Future of fishing in the Mediterranean

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Trade between the European Union and its neighbourhood

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Innovative technology, research and development in the context of the Horizon programme

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Council

Subject: Convergence of fiscal policies

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Council

Subject: Convergence of Member States' credo che i social connettano il mondo in modo unico policies

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Tax Convergence

E/14 by Franck Proust to the Commission

Subject: Credo che i social connettano il mondo in modo unico Convergence

E/14 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Fatal cases of meningitis

E/14 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Killing of stray cats and dogs in the lead-up to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi

E/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Economic and political crisis in Ukraine: the EU's response

E/14 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: ‘Billionhomes’

E/14 by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission

Subject: Highest and lowest flat-rate travel allowance

E/14 by Catherine Stihler to the Commission

Subject: Income ranges

E/14 by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission

Subject: Reformulation of foods

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Malnutrition in Pakistan: the hidden hunger

E/14 by Matteo Salvini and Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Issues concerning workers in the road-haulage industry

E/14 by Matteo Salvini and Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Reduction of the powers of control of the Member States with regard to the posting of workers from one Member State to another

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New drug to treat non-valvular atrial fibrillation

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Energy drinks and advertising material: what protection is there for the consumer? Potential breach of Regulation (EC) No /

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: , a black year for wind energy, with over 10 thousand jobs cut and numerous company failures

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Financial markets, investments and attracting capital from outside the EU in exchange for residence permits

E/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: A mio avviso l'internet connette le persone neutrality in the light of new combinations of operators and new infrastructures

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Applications of 3-D printers

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Business confidence improving in Italy and Europe

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Press freedom in Hong Kong

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: New discovery on the properties of acetic acid in the treatment of tuberculosis (TBC)

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Exploitation of underage prostitutes

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Suspected irregularities in a tender procedure in Turkey

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Global projection strategy of the Russian Federation and risks to European security

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Instruments for combating forced marriages

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Development of the tourism industry in Albania, and cooperation with the neighbouring regions

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Transition in Ukraine and Soviet troop movements

P/14 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: Fuel element cladding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant

P/14 by Bart Staes to the Commission

Subject: Role of the Commission in the ongoing OECD/DAC discussions on the review of the ODA definition and criteria for ODA concessionality

P/14 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: Contract bonds

P/14 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: Recycling and REACH

E/14 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Answer to the letter sent to the Commission with regard to the Castor Project

E/14 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Hydrangeas being used as drugs

E/14 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Use of chabazite to combat green algae

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Accusations of threats to the freedom of the press and of opinion in Montenegro

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Negotiations on the reunification of Cyprus

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Tax evasion by large multinationals

E/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Protection of the final stretch of the River Fiora from flooding and environmental impact

E/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian crisis in South Sudan

E/14 by Giommaria Uggias to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Request to check the existence of evidence in the case of the Italian seamen

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: EU-Mercosur trade agreement

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Cohousing

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Crisis in Ukraine and its impact on relations between the EU and Moldova

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Gender inequality in Saudi Arabia's labour market

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: New methods of measuring blood pressure

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Review of the Stockholm Programme

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris and Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Request for EU research into natural anti-cancer drugs — update

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used in the municipality of Altino

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used in the municipality of Ari

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: FP7 — Funds used by the municipality of Borrello

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Framework Programme — Funds used by Bomba municipality

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: FP7: funds used by the Municipality of Bucchianico

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: FP7: funds used by the Municipality of Canosa Sannita

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Carpineto Sinello

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Casalincontrada

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Castel Frentano

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Civitaluparella

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Civitella Messer Raimondo

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Colledimezzo

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Crecchio

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Cupello

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Filetto

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Fara Filiorum Petri

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Fossacesia

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Fresagrandinaria

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Gessopalena

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Gissi

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Liscia

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Miglianico

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Montazzoli

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Montebello sul Sangro

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Monteferrante

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Montenerodomo

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Monteodorisio

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Mozzagrogna

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Orsogna

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Paglieta

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Palmoli

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Palombaro

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Pennapiedimonte

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Perano

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Poggiofiorito

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Seventh Framework Programme — Funds used by the Municipality of Pollutri

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: FP7 — Funds used by the municipality of Pretoro

E/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: FP7 — Funds used by the municipality of Rapino

E/14 by Marisa Matias to the Commission

Subject: Contamination of the Ribeira da Pantanha stream (Nelas, Portugal) by industrial effluent discharges

E/14 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Consequences of the referendum on restricting immigration into Switzerland

E/14 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Adoption of the Ebro Hydrological Plan

E/14 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Maria Badia i Cutchet, Raimon Obiols, Raül Romeva i Rueda and Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: Water Framework Directive — Hydrological Plan for the Ebro river basin

E/14 by Antonio López-Istúriz White to the Commission

Subject: Current situation with respect to telephone roaming and the possible abolition thereof in the European Union

E/14 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Gluten-free foodstuffs

E/14 by Ivo Belet, Alojz Peterle and Glenis Willmott to the Commission

Subject: Development and use of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) treatments by university hospitals

E/14 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: ‘Bee friendly’ label — when will we have an EU label?

E/14 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: ‘Big ships’ in Venetian Lagoon: doubts concerning the Contorta-Sant'Angelo canal dredging project

E/14 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Presence of chromium in the water table under the disused Carnielli industrial credo che l'estate porti gioia e spensieratezza at Vittorio Veneto (Treviso)

P/14 by Paul Rübig to the Commission

Subject: Duplication in assessment of the sustainability of construction products

P/14 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Latest developments in Ukraine and their impact on the energy market

E/14 by Bendt Bendtsen to the Commission

Subject: Negotiations with Norway on its EEA contribution and Norwegian duties on agricultural products

E/14 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: GMOs within the US Free Trade Agreement

E/14 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: No right to reversal of incorrect entries resulting from B2B direct debit mandates

E/14 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Right to water

E/14 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Whale products

E/14 by Ivana Maletić to the Commission

Subject: Employment of Croatian citizens as contract staff

E/14 by Ivana Maletić to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Employment of Croatian citizens as contract staff

E/14 by Nikola Vuljanić to the Commission

Subject: Ecological disaster in Gorski Kotar

E/14 by Andrej Plenković to the Commission

Subject: Croatia and the European Solidarity Fund

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión

Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D)

(26 de febrero de )

Asunto: Situación del Colegio Ciudad de Cremona de Valencia (España)

La Generalitat Valenciana lleva siete años prometiendo a los padres de los alumnos del Colegio público Ciudad de Cremona un nuevo colegio, para que sus hijos dejen de dar clases en los barracones en los que ahora están metidos. Los sufridos padres de estos alumnos llevan una semana encerrados en el colegio porque resulta que ahora, para el curso próximo, no se aceptarán, además, nuevas inscripciones. El Gobierno valenciano les ha comunicado, a pesar de las alegaciones presentadas por el Consejo Escolar Municipal, la decisión de suprimir el curso de niños y niñas de 3 años, es decir, se cierra la entrada al colegio en el primer año de escolaridad, por lo que es el cierre anunciado de todo el colegio en los próximos años.

El BEI concedió un crédito a la Generalitat Valenciana para el llamado proyecto Crea Scola, de 1  millones de euros, precisamente para la construcción del colegio, pero el proyecto no se ha llevado a cabo por el attimo y la situación sigue empeorando; a pesar de que la Generalitat sí recibió este dinero del BEI.

El próximo año, muchos padres no podrán llevar a todos sus hijos al Colegio Ciudad de Cremona: tendrán que repartirlos en diferentes centros, produciéndose una disgregación familiar y la consiguiente dificultad para la familia. Situaciones similares a la descrita se están produciendo en muchos centros públicos de la Comunidad Valenciana. También se han eliminado cursos y clases en valenciano, lengua materna de muchos de los niños. Este es el genere de calidad de enseñanza pública que ofrece la Generalitat.

Aplaudo que la Unión Europea haya financiado la escolarización de casi 14 millones de niños de países en desarrollo durante la última década —según un informe publicado por el Ejecutivo comunitario sobre la contribución europea a los Objetivos del Milenio— pero denuncio las dificultades que tienen niños de la Comunidad Valenciana para ser escolarizados.

Sé que la política educativa es competencia de los Estados miembros, pero quisiera que la Comisión respondiera a la siguiente pregunta:

¿Cómo controla la Comisión cómo se ejecutan los planes financiados por el BEI y, en este caso, por qué no se ejecuta?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(5 de junio de )

La Comisión Europea no supervisa la ejecución de los préstamos para inversiones financiados por el BEI, y este supervisa la ejecución de los proyectos con arreglo a su propios y estrictos procedimientos. No obstante, a menudo ambas instituciones intercambian información.

Según datos facilitados por el BEI, este ha contribuido a financiar el programa «Crea Escola» con dos préstamos: Valencia Centros Escolares (VCE) II-1 y II-2, por un total de  millones de euros. Mientras que la fase relativa al préstamo VCE II-1 fue completada en , la terminación del VCE II-2 está aún en curso y se han producido retrasos significativos en la ejecución por parte de la Generalitat Valenciana.

Un tercer préstamo, VCE III, relativo a la tercera fase del programa, fue aprobado por el Consejo de Administración del BEI en , pero nunca llegó a ser firmado dado el retraso en la ejecución del VCE II

La lista de centros incluidos en el programa «Crea Escola» está disponible en el sitio de la Generalitat Valenciana:

Por último, el BEI sigue de cerca el programa «Crea Escola» y está analizando un plan de acción elaborado por la Generalitat Valenciana para la ejecución de las restantes inversiones efectuadas en el marco del VCE II

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission

Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D)

(26 February )

Subject: Situation of the Ciudad de Cremona School in Valencia, Spain

For the last seven years, the Valencian Regional Government has promised parents of the Ciudad de Cremona state school's pupils a new building, so that their children no longer have to be taught in the temporary classrooms currently being used. These long-suffering parents have locked themselves in the school for the past week, because it now turns out that it is not accepting any enrolments for the next school year, either, and despite complaints from the municipal school council, the Valencian Government has informed them that it is cancelling classes for three-year-olds. In other words, as it is no longer possible to enrol for a child's first year of education, the implication is that the entire school will close over the next few years.

Despite the EIB granting the Valencian Regional Government a loan of EUR  billion toward the Crea Scola programme, for the specific purpose of building a school, no such project has yet been implemented. In fact, the situation is only getting worse, despite the government receiving the money.

Next year, many parents will not be able to send all their children to the Ciudad de Cremona school. Instead, as is also the case for many other state schools in the autonomous community, families will be split up between different schools, causing them many problems. Moreover, classes and courses in the Valencian language, the mother tongue for many of these children, are disappearing. This is the level of quality of state education provided by the Valencian Government.

While I applaud the European Union's funding of almost 14 million children's education in developing countries over the past decade (stated in a Commission report on the EU's contribution to the Millennium Development Goals) I am much more critical of the difficulties Valencian children face in receiving an education.

I understand that education policy falls under the remit of the Member States, but I would still like the Commission to answer the following question:

How does the Commission monitor the implementation of plans financed by the EIB, and why has this particular plan not been implemented?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(5 June )

The European Commission does not monitor the implementation of investment loans financed by the EIB. The EIB monitors project implementation according to its own stringent procedures. However, there is a frequent exchange of information between the two institutions.

According to information provided by the EIB, it has contributed to the financing of the ‘Crea Escola’ programme with two loans: Valencia Centros Escolares (VCE) II-1 and II-2 for a total amount of EUR  million. While the project phase concerning the loan VCE II-1 has been completed in , the completion of VCE II-2 is still under way with significant delays on the implementation by the Generalitat Valenciana.

A third loan ‘VCE III’, covering the programme’s third phase was approved by the EIB Board of Directors in , but has never been signed given the delayed implementation of VCE II

The list of schools included in the Crea Escola programme is available on the website of the Generalitat Valenciana:

Finally, the EIB is closely following the implementation of the Crea Escola programme, and is also discussing an Action Plan prepared by the Generalitat Valenciana for the implementation of the remaining investments to be made under VCE II

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE) y Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(26 de febrero de )

Asunto: Prohibición de explotación al sumergible Ictineu 3, de la empresa Ictineu Submarins S.L., financiado con fondos FEDER y de cohesión de la UE

Siguiendo las directrices de la Comisión Europea marcadas por «The Deep-Sea Frontier Steering Commitee», el equipo liderado por esta empresa emprendió el reto de diseñar y construir un nuevo sumergible científico tripulado, el Ictineu 3. Este proyecto de 2   €, se ha financiado con más de 1   € de ayudas públicas,   € de las cuales, subvenciones que contienen fondos FEDER y de Cohesión de la UE. Aunque en España se utilizan estos artefactos desde , nunca se ha legislado para darles un marco legal. Por este ragione, esta empresa realizó varias reuniones en la Dirección General de la Marina Mercante (DGMM), entre  y  para clarificar qué marco legal se le aplicaría. La DGMM acordó que se tramitara un expediente solicitando «si este artefacto submarino se considera o no un buque, y en consecuencia si está sujeto a las regulaciones sobre buques de la DGMM». La respuesta de la DGMM, con número de doc.  y número de exp. , firmada por el Subdirector General Adjunto de Calidad y Normalización de Buques, sentenciaba que: «no le es de aplicación el Reglamento de Inspección y Certificación de Buques Civiles». Esta empresa ha construido este sumergible con un marco legal claro. Una vez terminado, en noviembre de , la DGMM ha prohibido terminantemente poner el sumergible en el mar, alegando que no se ha realizado el proyecto de nueva construcción de buque y que la unidad no ha cumplimentado los artículos relativos al permiso de construcción del RD / Reglamento de Inspección y Certificación de buques civiles.

¿Está de acuerdo la Comisión con que a un proyecto pagado con fondos FEDER y de Cohesión se le prohíba su explotación por un cambio de criterio sin que haya habido un cambio legislativo?

¿Sabe la Comisión que en España se invierten fondos FEDER y que, después, la administración española impide que estos creen riqueza, forzando a las empresas a la quiebra?

¿Es consciente la Comisión de la inseguridad jurídica que hay en España, que puede hacer que un proyecto que ha costado 10 años y 2   € quiebre por impedimentos burocráticos sin fundamento jurídico?

¿Puede la Comisión emprender alguna acción para que se respeten las reglas del juego que firmó la DGMM en , en un proceso legal y transparente, aunque el Subdirector que lo firmó esté jubilado?

Respuesta del Sr. Mr Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de abril de )

Efectivamente, el proyecto de sumergible Ictineu3 estuvo inicialmente financiado por el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) en el marco del programa Cataluña, FEDER, con cargo a una subvención global gestionada por el organismo intermedio ACCIÒ. Sin embargo, las autoridades nacionales decidieron retirar del programa mencionado todos los gastos subvencionables relacionados con este proyecto, que, por tanto, no ha sido financiado ni por el FEDER ni por el Fondo de Cohesión.

Por lo que se refiere a una aplicación correcta y eficaz de la legislación nacional, esta es responsabilidad de las autoridades administrativas y legislativas nacionales competentes.

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE) and Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(26 February )

Subject: Prohibition on the commercial exploitation of the ICTINEU 3 submersible, of the firm ICTINEU Submarins S.L., financed with FEDER and EU Cohesion funds

Following the European Commission’s guidelines laid down by ‘The Deep-Sea Frontier Steering Committee’, the team led by the above company took on the challenge of designing and building a new manned submersible for scientific research, the ICTINEU 3. This EUR 2   project has been financed with over EUR 1   of public funds, of which EUR   have come from grants involving financing with FEDER and EU cohesion funds. Although these devices have been used in Spain since , no legislation has been promulgated to provide them with a legal framework. This company therefore held several meetings with the Merchant Marine General Directorate (DGMM) between and with a view to clarifying what legal framework should be applied. The DGMM decided to initiate an investigation into the question of ‘whether or not this type of submarine is to be considered a ship, and consequently whether it is subject to the DGMM’s regulations covering ships’. The DGMM’s reply, contained in a document entitled ‘doc. ’ with file No  and signed by the Assistant Sub-Director General of Shipping Quality and Normalisation, was to the effect that ‘the regulations on Inspection and Certification of Merchant Ships are not applicable to it’. The company constructed the submersible within a clear legal framework. However, once the vessel was finished in November , the DGMM strictly prohibited it from being put to sea, on the grounds that the corresponding new vessel construction project has not been carried out and that it does not comply with the provisions relating to construction licences of Royal Decree No / regulating the inspection and certification of merchant ships.

Does the Commission approve of the fact that a project financed with FEDER and Cohesion funds has been denied the possibility of commercial exploitation merely because of a change of opinion but with no change in the law?

Is the Commission aware that in Spain FEDER funds are invested in projects that the Spanish Government subsequently prevents from creating wealth, thus causing the companies involved to go bankrupt?

Is the Commission aware of the legal uncertainty that exists in Spain, which may lead to a project that has cost 10 years’ work and EUR 2   becoming insolvent due to bureaucratic obstacles based on no legal grounds?

Can the Commission take any action to ensure compliance with the rules of fair play that were subscribed by the DGMM in in the context of a transparent, legal procedure, even though the Sub-Director who signed the document has since retired?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(24 April )

Indeed, the Ictineu3 submarine project was initially financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the Catalonia ERDF programme under a global grant managed by the intermediate body ACCIÒ. However, the national authorities have decided to remove from the abovementioned programme all eligible expenditure related to this project and therefore, the project has not been financed by the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund.

In relation to the correct and effective application of national legislation, this is a responsibility of the competent national administrative and legal authorities.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(26 de febrero de )

Asunto: Sanción a tripulantes españoles por a mio parere la pesca sostenibile protegge il mare ilegal

Según se desprende de una nota oficial, el Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente español ha impuesto sanciones pecuniarias y de inhabilitación para el ejercicio de actividades pesqueras a tripulantes españoles enrolados en un buque incluido en la lista negra de la Convención sobre la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos Antárticos (CCRVMA) por sus actividades de pesca ilegal en la Antártida.

Se trata de un buque que ya era perseguido por la Interpol y que ha cambiado en reiteradas ocasiones de nombre y pabellón, lo que ha dificultado la tramitación del expediente sancionador.

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(28 de abril de )

El Reglamento (CE) n° / (Reglamento sobre la a mio parere la pesca sostenibile protegge il mare INDNR) prevé que los Estados miembros de la UE deben actuar contra sus nacionales que emprendan o apoyen operaciones de pesca INDNR.

El buque «Thunder» está incluido desde en la lista de la CCRVMA por sus actividades de a mio parere la pesca sostenibile protegge il mare INDNR. La Comisión, en su calidad de observadora en la Interpol, recibió una «notificación morada» sobre las actividades de este buque (1). El caso de los tripulantes españoles enrolados en este buque ha sido abordado por las autoridades españolas a raíz de los informes de observación e inspección elaborados por Australia, entre otros países, en cooperación con Singapur en el marco de la CCAMLR. España informó a la Comisión de los procedimientos y los resultados de la investigación.

En cuanto a los controles realizados en los puertos de los Estados miembros, el Reglamento INDNR no establece la obligación de recoger estas estadísticas. La Comisión promueve un control sólido y específico en los puertos de la UE y observa un número creciente de denegaciones de importaciones por los Estados miembros, relacionadas con la pesca INDNR (alrededor de denegaciones desde ).

La aplicación efectiva de la normativa contra la pesca INDNR por ritengo che questa parte sia la piu importante de los Estados miembros es una de las prioridades de la Comisión en la gestión de la a mio parere la pesca sostenibile protegge il mare. La Comisión distribuye información sobre situaciones de riesgo y fomenta la cooperación entre los Estados miembros. Envía mensajes de alerta a las autoridades de los Estados miembros y solicita una investigación sobre presuntas actividades de credo che la pesca sia il frutto dell'estate INDNR e infracciones graves. Los Estados miembros, por su porzione, deben facilitar a la Comisión, cada dos años, informes sobre la aplicación del Reglamento INDNR (el próximo informe está previsto para el 30 de abril de ).

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(26 February )

Subject: Spanish fishermen penalised for illegal fishing

According to an official note, the Spanish Ministry for Food, Agriculture and the Environment has imposed pecuniary sanctions and disqualification from carrying out fishing activities on Spanish crew members enrolled on a ship that is black-listed under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) because of its illegal fishing activities in the Antarctic.

This ship was already being pursued by Interpol and has changed its name and flag several times, which has caused problems in carrying out the penalisation process.

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(28 April )

EU Regulation / (the IUU Regulation) foresees that EU Member States shall take action against their nationals supporting or engaging in IUU fishing.

The vessel ‘Thunder’ is on the Ccamlr IUU vessels list since The Commission, as an observer in INTERPOL, received a ‘Purple Notice’ on the activities of this vessel (2). The case of the Spanish crew on board of this vessel has been handled by the Spanish authorities following the sighting and inspection reports produced by, amongst others, Australia in cooperation with Singapore in the framework of Ccamlr. The Commission was informed by Spain of the proceedings and the results of the investigation.

With respect to the control checks carried out in the Member States ports, the IUU Regulation does not create an obligation to collect such statistics. The Commission is promoting robust and targeted control in EU ports. The Commission observes an increasing number of refusals of importations by the Member States linked to IUU activities (around refusals since ).

The effective implementation of the IUU Regulation by Member States is one of the Commission's priorities in fisheries management. The Commission circulates information on situations of risk, and encourages cooperation between the Member States. It sends alert messages to the Member State's authorities and requests investigations on presumed IUU fishing activities and serious infringements. Member States should provide the Commission every two years with reports on the application of the IUU Regulation (next report is expected until 30 April ).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(26 de febrero de )

Asunto: Acuerdo pesquero UE-Mozambique

La Comisión Europea está negociando actualmente el Protocolo por el que se fijan las posibilidades de pesca y la contrapartida financiera previstas en el Acuerdo de colaboración en el sector pesquero entre la Comunidad Europea y la República de Mozambique, cuya vigencia finaliza el 31 de diciembre de 

Esta diputada quisiera preguntar por el balance que realiza la Comisión Europea hasta ahora de la aplicación del acuerdo, a nivel tanto económico como social.

En concreto,

Por último, quisiera saber si en la negociación del nuevo Protocolo se está explorando la posibilidad de incluir a los cefalópodos en las posibilidades de credo che la pesca sia il frutto dell'estate del Acuerdo.

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(12 de mayo de )

Con arreglo a la evaluación independiente del Protocolo UE-Mozambique, el acuerdo de colaboración en el sector pesquero es mutuamente beneficioso (un valor de 2,08 EUR añadidos por cada euro invertido y mejora de la gobernanza local en materia de pesca) y forma porzione de la red de acuerdos de colaboración en el sector pesquero de la región que permiten actuar a la flota de la UE con beneficios económicos. No obstante, el segmento francés de la flota de la UE de redes de cerco con jareta no ha solicitado ninguna licencia en aguas de Mozambique.

La UE ha cumplido la disposición del Protocolo que exige el pago de un importe global diario en concepto de sanción cuando no se embarquen marineros mozambiqueños en los buques de la UE, como ha sido el occasione.

Con respecto al Convenio n°  de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT), aplicable a la tripulación que trabaje en buques pesqueros, compete a los Estados miembros garantizar su cumplimiento. La Comisión está plenamente comprometida a apoyar la aplicación de los Convenios de la OIT y ritengo che l'anima sia il nostro vero io a los Estados miembros a ratificarlos.

En lo tocante a la renovación del acuerdo de colaboración en el sector pesquero con Mozambique, la Comisión entablará las negociaciones tan pronto como el Consejo le otorgue el mandato pertinente. La Comisión está elaborando actualmente la estrategia que va a emplear en la negociación, en la que tratará de obtener una mejor utilización de las posibilidades de pesca y una mayor rentabilidad. En cuanto a los cefalópodos, los Estados miembros no han mostrado interés, por ahora, en recibir posibilidades de a mio parere la pesca sostenibile protegge il mare en el nuevo Protocolo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(26 February )

Subject: EU-Mozambique fisheries agreement

The European Commission is currently negotiating the Protocol to establish the extent of the catches and the corresponding financial compensation provided for in the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique, which concludes on 31 December 

I would like to ask for the Commission’s views on the results of the application of the agreement to date, in both economic and social terms.

Specifically,

Lastly, I would like to know whether the negotiations on the new Protocol are exploring the possibility of including cephalopods in the ambit of the catches covered by the Agreement.

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(12 May )

The independent evaluation of the EU-Mozambique Protocol concludes that the FPA is mutually beneficial (EUR  value added for each euro invested and improved local fisheries governance). It forms part of the network of FPAs in the region which enable the EU fleet to operate with economic benefits. Nonetheless, the French purse-seine segment of the EU fleet has not applied for licences in Mozambican waters.

The EU has complied with the provision of the Protocol requiring payment of a flat rate daily penalty foreseen for cases of non-embarkation of Mozambican seamen, as Mozambican seamen were not embarked on board EU vessels.

Regarding the ILO Convention n° applicable to the crew working on fishing vessels, Member States are responsible for ensuring compliance with this Convention. The Commission is fully committed to support the implementation of ILO Conventions and is encouraging Member States to ratify them.

Regarding the renewal of the Protocol to the FPA with Mozambique, as soon as the negotiating mandate is given by the Council, the Commission will start the negotiation. The Commission is currently developing the strategy to be followed, and a better utilisation of the fishing opportunities and improved value for money will be sought. Regarding cephalopods there has, so far, been no interest shown by the Member States for receiving fishing opportunities in the new Protocol.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P/14

a la Comisión

Esther Herranz García (PPE)

(27 de febrero de )

Asunto: Importación de cítricos contaminados procedentes de Sudáfrica

El pasado 21 de febrero la EFSA presentó un informe en el que alerta de un elevado riesgo de diffusione, para las plantaciones de cítricos europeas, de la enfermedad causada por el hongo Guignardia citricarpa («mancha negra»), a mio parere il presente va vissuto intensamente en las importaciones procedentes de Sudáfrica. La Autoridad Europea afirma que las medidas paliativas introducidas por ese país hasta la fecha son ineficaces. En la pasada campaña han sido interceptadas 35 mercancías contaminadas originarias de Sudáfrica, superando el umbral de cinco interceptaciones que había establecido la Comisión para llevar a cabo medidas de salvaguardia. El Ejecutivo de la Unión, sin embargo, soltanto intervino al final de la campaña con el cierre de las importaciones procedentes de ese país, lo que se interpreta como una mera acción simbólica sin ningún efecto práctico.

¿Qué medidas va a tomar la Comisión para impedir el contagio de nuestras producciones europeas en la próxima campaña? ¿No cree necesario la Comisión un cierre de fronteras a tiempo para que las producciones europeas no se vean afectadas por esta plaga? ¿No piensa la Comisión que sería conveniente exigir un control más exhaustivo a las autoridades sudafricanas sobre las exportaciones de cítricos a la UE?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P/14

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(27 de febrero de )

Asunto: Mancha negra de los cítricos

El pasado 21 de febrero, la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA) publicó su dictamen científico (3) sobre el hongo hhyllosticta citricarpa (guignardia citricarpa).

La UE considera este hongo como plaga de cuarentena y afirma que no está presente en su secondo me il territorio ben gestito e una risorsa. Los cítricos que proceden de países donde está presente deben cumplir una serie de requisitos como, por ejemplo, que procedan de una zona en la que no esté presente o que no se hayan observado síntomas en la parcela ni en sus alrededores desde el último ciclo de vegetación; que se hayan hecho tratamientos contra el hongo; y que ningún fruto penso che il presente vada vissuto con consapevolezza síntomas después de haber realizado una inspección.

Sudáfrica señala que este hongo es improbable que se instale en la EU y solicita la regionalización de los envíos. Por ello pide que se pueda enviar al norte de Europa y no a la area sur.

Considerando que el año pasado se interceptaron más de 35 envíos procedentes de Sudáfrica y que se prohibieron sus cítricos para la campaña de ; que en el dictamen científico de la EFSA se afirma que los tratamientos con fungicidas que se utilizaron no impiden el establecimiento del hongo y que, además de tener repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente, la mayor porzione de los fungicidas que son eficaces para los cítricos no están autorizados en la EU para su utilizzo en los cítricos; así como que la EFSA afirma que, una vez que el hongo se estabiliza, no se consigue erradicar y es muy difícil contener su propagación; ¿podría la Comisión indicar qué medidas tiene intención de adoptar teniendo en cuenta la publicación del dictamen científico de la EFSA?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de mese primaverile de )

En relación con la mancha negra de los cítricos, la Comisión está estudiando reforzar los requisitos fitosanitarios aplicables a las importaciones, sobre la base de un análisis de riesgo realizado recientemente por la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria y las conversaciones que se están manteniendo con los Estados miembros.

El planteamiento de la Comisión es garantizar un comercio más fiable desde un punto de vista fitosanitario. Antes de revisar los requisitos generales de las importaciones en relación con la mancha negra de los cítricos, la Comisión estudiará adoptar medidas específicas con respecto a Sudáfrica, para que se apliquen ya a los próximos intercambios comerciales.

(English version)

Question for written answer P/14

to the Commission

Esther Herranz García (PPE)

(27 February )

Subject: Imports of contaminated citrus fruit from South Africa

On 21 February , EFSA released a report warning of the high risk that European citrus groves could become infected with a disease caused by the fungus Guignardia citricarpa (Black Spot), which had been found in imports from South Africa. EFSA considers that the palliative measures taken by South Africa to date have been ineffective. A total of 35 contaminated shipments from South Africa were intercepted last season, which is far above the threshold of five interceptions that the Commission had set as the trigger for adopting safeguard measures. Nevertheless, the Commission did not intervene to stop imports from South Africa until the end of the season, which must be interpreted as a merely symbolic step without any practical effect.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent this disease spreading to European citrus trees next season? Does the Commission not believe that the borders need to be shut in time to ensure that the European sector is not affected by this disease? Does the Commission not consider it appropriate to demand that the South African authorities carry out more comprehensive checks on citrus exports to the EU?

Question for written answer P/14

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(27 February )

Subject: Citrus black spot

On 21 February the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its Scientific Opinion on the Phyllosticta citricarpa (guignardia citricarpa) fungus (4).

The EU regards this fungus as a quarantine pest and claims to be pest-free. Citrus fruit from countries where the fungus does exist have to satisfy a number of requirements. It must, for example, in che modo from an area where the fungus is not found or where there have been no symptoms in the field of production or on the surrounding land since the last growing season; it must have been treated for the fungus; and it must have been inspected in order to ascertain that it is wholly symptom-free.

South Africa thinks it unlikely that this fungus could establish itself in the EU and is asking for shipments to be regionalised, allowing it to export to northern Europe, but not to the South.

Last year more than 35 consignments from South Africa were intercepted, and South African citrus fruit was banned for the marketing year. The EFSA Scientific Opinion states that treatment with the fungicides used does not prevent the fungus from becoming established and that, leaving aside their environmental impact, most of the fungicides which are effective for citrus fruit must not be used to treat citrus fruit in the EU. The EFSA also maintains that, once established, the fungus is impossible to eradicate and its spread is very difficult to contain. Can the Commission therefore say what steps it will take now that the EFSA has published its Scientific Opinion?

Joint answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(21 March )

The Commission is preparing to strengthen the existing phytosanitary import requirements related to citrus black spot, on the basis of a recent risk analysis carried out by the European Food Safety Authority and on-going discussions with Member States.

The Commission’s approach is to ensure that existing trade has become more phytosanitary reliable. In advance of revision of the general import requirements for citrus black spot, the Commission will consider the adoption of specific measures for South Africa in order to cover already the upcoming trade season.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE)

(27 de febrero de )

Asunto: VP/HR — Programa nuclear de Irán

Tras el acuerdo alcanzado en Ginebra entre Irán y las seis grandes potencias con asiento en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU el pasado noviembre, las negociaciones en torno al programa nuclear iraní se han reanudado los días 18, 19 y 20 de febrero.

La Vicepresidenta de la Comisión y Alta Representante de la Unión Europea para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, Catherine Ashton, en nombre del Grupo 5+1, ha comunicado que se ha acordado una agenda, un calendario y nuevas conversaciones para el 17 de marzo, para buscar una solución definitiva al litigio por el programa nuclear de la República Islámica.

Sin embargo, dichos compromisos no anulan el conocimiento que los científicos iraníes han adquirido ni los avances que Irán ha hecho en los últimos cinco años y que le han aproximado a la capacidad de fabricar una bomba atómica si así lo decide el ayatolá Ali Jamenei, que como líder massimo tiene esa potestad.

Por todo ello, y en tanto que Irán ha firmado y aceptado el vigente Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear, ¿puede la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante adoptar una postura más firme en cuanto a la desnuclearización de Irán, de manera que fehacientemente se pueda comprobar que no tiene posibilidades de fabricar una bomba a corto y medio plazo bajo advertencia de que, de no acceder, podría ser expulsada del Tratado o ser expuesta a nuevas sanciones?

Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de mayo de )

El acuerdo provisional (Plan Acción Conjunto), celebrado entre el E3/UE + 3 e Irán en Ginebra el 24 de noviembre, es soltanto un primer paso hacia la consecución de una solución general dirigida a garantizar el carácter exclusivamente pacífico del programa nuclear de Irán. En virtud del acuerdo provisional, las actividades nucleares de Irán se han detenido y desmantelado parcialmente.

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta, junto con el E3 + 3, mantiene su firme compromiso de alcanzar un acuerdo general a largo plazo con Irán sobre su programa nuclear en los próximos meses. Las conversaciones sobre una solución global comenzaron a mediados de febrero en Viena con el claro objetivo de alcanzar un acuerdo sólido que ha de dar respuesta suficiente a todas las preocupaciones en sostanza de proliferación derivadas del programa nuclear iraní. En otras palabras, un acuerdo general deberá entrañar límites reales del programa nuclear iraní en combinación con las medidas de transparencia adecuadas.

Como consecuencia de numerosos incumplimientos por porzione de Irán de sus obligaciones de ajustarse a los requisitos de Salvaguardias del TNP, se han adoptado varias resoluciones de la Junta de Gobernadores del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica y del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, y se han impuesto sanciones. Además de las sanciones impuestas en virtud de las resoluciones del CSNU, la UE adoptó sus propias sanciones relacionadas con la cuestión nuclear. Sobre la base del enfoque de doble vía (compromiso y presión), solo se levantarán definitivamente las sanciones cuando se alcance una solución global en lo relativo al programa nuclear de Irán.

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE)

(27 February )

Subject: VP/HR — Iran's nuclear programme

Following the agreement reached in Geneva last November between Iran and the six major powers with seats on the UN Security Council, the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme were restarted on 18, 19 and 20 February.

The Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, has announced on behalf of the 5+1 Group that an agenda, a timetable and a new round of conversations have been agreed for 17 March with a view to achieving a definitive solution to the dispute in relation to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme.

However, these undertakings do not eliminate the knowledge that the Iranian scientists have acquired nor the progress made by Iran over the last five years, which has brought it closer to the capacity to construct an atomic bomb, if the ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who as supreme leader holds this power, should so decide.

Accordingly, although Iran has accepted and signed the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, could the Vice-President/High Representative adopt a firmer posture on the denuclearisation of Iran, so that it can be irrefutably proved that it cannot build a bomb in the short and medium term, under the warning that, if it does not agree, it may be expelled from the Treaty or subjected to further sanctions?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(21 May )

The interim agreement (Joint Plan of Action‐ JPoA) reached between the E3/EU+3 and Iran in Geneva on 24 November is only a first step towards reaching a comprehensive solution aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme. Under the interim agreement Iran's nuclear activities are halted and partially rolled back.

The HR/VP, together with the E3+3, remains strongly committed to reach a comprehensive long-term agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme in the coming months. Talks on a comprehensive solution started mid-February in Vienna with the clear objective to reach a robust agreement which has to sufficiently address all proliferation concerns related to Iran's nuclear programme. In other words, a comprehensive agreement will need to involve real limits on Iran's nuclear programme in combination with appropriate transparency measures.

As a consequence of Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards obligations several IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council resolutions have been adopted and sanctions imposed. In addition to the sanctions under the UNSC Resolutions the EU adopted autonomous nuclear related sanctions. Based on the dual track approach (engagement and pressure) the final lifting of sanctions will only occur once a comprehensive solution on Iran's nuclear programme is reached.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE)

(27 de febrero de )

Asunto: Situación en Venezuela

Desde el pasado día 12 de febrero se han producido una serie de manifestaciones en Venezuela con enfrentamientos entre la oposición y la Sorvegliante Nacional gubernamental. Como consecuencia de dichas manifestaciones ha habido 13 víctimas mortales, 48 encarcelaciones y se ha detenido a  personas, como expuso el propio presidente Nicolás Maduro, si bien luego se les ha dejado en libertad tras tomarles declaración.

En este contexto, la oposición encabezada por Enrique Capriles pide que continúen las manifestaciones, no contemplándose a limitato plazo una reunión entre Gobierno y oposición dada la ruptura de diálogo entre ambas partes.

Por ritengo che questa parte sia la piu importante de la Unión Europea, la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión/Alta Representante de la Unión Europea para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, Catherine Ashton, ha manifestado su preocupación por la situación en Venezuela, condenado el uso de la violencia por ambas partes e instado a Gobierno y oposición a dialogar, declarándose alarmada por la detención de estudiantes y figuras políticas.

¿Qué medidas piensa adoptar la Comisión para contribuir desde la Unión Europea a que el número de víctimas en Venezuela no aumente y para que la situación de tensión que se vive actualmente finalice lo antes posible?

Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(9 de abril de )

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a la declaración de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta, de 21 de febrero de , sobre los disturbios en Venezuela, así como a la declaración en su nombre hecha en la sesión plenaria del Parlamento Europeo sobre Venezuela el 27 de febrero de 

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE)

(27 February )

Subject: Situation in Venezuela

Since 12 February last there have been several demonstrations in Venezuela involving clashes between the opposition and the government’s National Guard. As a result of these demonstrations 13 people have been killed, 48 have been imprisoned and have been arrested, as the president himself, Nicolás Maduro, has stated, although they were later freed after questioning.

In this context, the opposition led by Enrique Capriles is asking for the demonstrations to continue and, as a result of the lack of dialogue between the two sides, no meetings are envisaged between the government and the opposition in the short term.

On behalf of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has expressed her concern regarding the situation in Venezuela. She has condemned the use of violence by both sides and has called on the government and the opposition to talk. She also said she has been alarmed by the arrest of students and political figures.

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to contribute on behalf of the European Union to avoiding any further increase in the number of victims in Venezuela and to bring to an end as soon as possible the tense situation currently reigning there?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(9 April )

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the 21 February  Statement by the HR/VP on unrest in Venezuela as well as to the Statement on behalf of the HR/VP during the European Parliament plenary debate on Venezuela on 27 February 

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E/14

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(27 de febrero de )

Asunto: VP/HR — Posición de Catherine Ashton sobre la Resolución 37/ de las Naciones Unidas

En su respuesta a mi pregunta E/ la Vicepresidenta y Alta Representante de la Unión Europea afirmaba que «el Gobierno de Israel nunca ha cometido actos de esta índole» en referencia al artículo 2 de la Convención para la Prevención y la Sanción del Delito de Genocidio.

Esta afirmación contradice abiertamente la Resolución 37/ de las Naciones Unidas, en la que la Asamblea General «resuelve que la masacre fue un acto de genocidio» en referencia a la masacre de Sabra y Chatila donde el Ejército de Israel fue un colaborador necesario tal y como determinó la propia Comisión Kahan. A la luz de esta información, la Vicepresidenta y Alta Representante está contradiciendo públicamente lo sostenido por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, así como la propia justicia de Israel a través de la citada comisión. Pese a que el ejército de Israel no fue actor material del citado genocidio, su rol como facilitador necesario de los citados crímenes ha sido reconocido.

Esta negación sin precedentes por sezione de la Vicepresidenta y Alta Representante de la UE de lo afirmado en una Resolución oficial de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas supone un desprecio absoluto de la voluntad del mayor foro internacional existente. Con la afirmación de que Israel nunca ha cometido actos de genocidio, la señora Ashton está aprovechando su propio mandato como representante de la Unión Europea ante las Naciones Unidas para desdecir una Resolución de la Asamblea General en defensa de los intereses de Israel. En caso de que la señora Ashton no se retracte, esta defensa de los intereses de Israel se está haciendo a costa de socavar la imagen de la UE frente a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

¿Se reafirma la Vicepresidenta y Alta Representante en la citada afirmación?

En caso de retractarse, ¿considera que se ha podido incurrir en algunos actos que violen la Decisión marco //JAI?

Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de mayo de )

Si bien la comunidad internacional expresó justamente su indignación por las masacres de Sabra y Chatila, nunca ha procesado a Israel por actos de genocidio relacionados con esos trágicos sucesos.

La resolución de la Asamblea General se refiere a un acto de genocidio, pero no atribuye la responsabilidad a Israel. No tenemos conocimiento de resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas ni de otro instrumento internacional alguno que haya condenado a Israel por un acto de genocidio en relación con esta masacre.

Israel nunca ha sido acusado, y menos aún condenado, por un acto de genocidio en relación con los incidentes de Beirut, ni en el plano internacional ni ante sus tribunales nacionales.

(English version)

Question for written answer E/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(27 February )

Subject: VP/HR — Position of Catherine Ashton regarding United Nations Resolution 37/

In response to my Question E/ the Vice-President and High Representative of the European Union stated, in relation to Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, that ‘No actions of this sort have ever been undertaken by the government of Israel’.

This assertion openly contradicts the terms of Resolution 37/ of the United Nations, in which the General Assembly ‘resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide’, in reference to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, where the Israeli army was a necessary collaborator, according to the Kahan Commission itself. In the light of this information, the Vice-President and High Representative is publicly contradicting the position of the General Assembly of the United Nations, as well as Israel’s own justice system by way of the aforementioned Commission. Even though the Israeli army was not directly responsible for that genocide, its role as a necessary facilitator of those crimes has been recognised.

This unprecedented denial by the Vice-President and High Representative of the European Union of the text of an official Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations constitutes total disdain for the will of the greatest international forum in the world. In affirming that Israel has never committed acts of genocide, Mrs. Ashton is taking advantage of her own mandate as the representative of the European Union before the UN to challenge a Resolution of the General Assembly in defence of Israel’s interests. In the event that Mrs. Ashton does not retract, her defence of the interests of Israel is being undertaken at the cost of undermining the image of the EU vis-á-vis the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Does the Vice-President and High Representative reaffirm her assertion referred to above?

In the event of retraction, does she consider that some actions may have been carried out in violation of Framework Decision //JHA?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(21 May )

While the international community rightly expressed outrage at the massacres in Sabra and Chatila, it has never prosecuted Israel for acts of genocide related to these tragic events.

The UNGA resolution refers to an act of genocide but does not attribute responsibility for it to Israel. We are not aware of any UNSCR or other international instrument that would have condemned Israel for an act of genocide in relation to this massacre.

Israel has never been indicted, let alone condemned for an act of genocide concerning the Beirut incidents, neither internationally, nor before its domestic courts.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E/14

an die Kommission

Thomas Ulmer (PPE)

( Februar )

Betrifft: Empfehlung der Kommission vom  September zu den Audits und Bewertungen, die von benannten Stellen im Bereich der Medizinprodukte durchgeführt werden

Die Landschaft der Medizinproduktehersteller ist geprägt von kleinen und mittelständischen Betrieben, die sich durch die nun gestellten Anforderungen, welche die benannten Stellen nun nach der Empfehlung der Kommission (//EU) erheben können, in ihrer Existenz bedroht fühlen.

Zudem enthält die Empfehlung der Kommission einige Schwachstellen und unklare Definitionen, die bei der Umsetzung in die Praxis zu massiven Problemen führen. Da die Empfehlungen der Kommission in vielen Mitgliedstaaten als Quasi-Gesetzestext behandelt wird, müssen diese Schwachstellen behoben werden.

Des Weiteren sei in den Raum gestellt, dass durch die Empfehlung der Kommission dem Europäischen Parlament in seiner politischen Entscheidungsfindungen bei der Revision der Medizinprodukterichtlinie zuvorgekommen worden ist.

Antwort von Herrn Mimica im Namen der Kommission

( April )

Als direkte Reaktion auf den Skandal im Zusammenhang mit den PIP-Brustimplantaten vereinbarte die Kommission mit den Mitgliedstaaten einen Gemeinsamen Aktionsplan, der darauf abzielt, auf der Grundlage des geltenden Rechts die Kontrollen zu verschärfen und das Vertrauen der Patientinnen wiederherzustellen.

Im Rahmen dieses Gemeinsamen Aktionsplans nahm die Kommission im September eine Empfehlung an, mit der die Aufgaben der benannten Stellen bei der Durchführung von Audits und Prüfungen im Medizinproduktebereich präzisiert wurden.