Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The cultural sector has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some governments have no clear plan as to when and how to reopen the sector. While there have been roadmaps for reopening other sectors, the cultural and creative sectors seem to be left aside. The economic consequences for the sector and its employees are far-reaching. Even with a tentative reopening of the sector in the near future, it will not be able to run at 100 % capacity, and safety and hygiene rules will add an additional financial burden to a sector that has experienced losses of more than 80 % of turnover over the past year.

1. Does the Commission intend to provide an EU roadmap for reopening the cultural sector?

2. Does it intend to provide guidelines for the safe reopening of cultural spaces?

Answer given by Commissioner Gabriel on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission is fully aware of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cultural and creative sectors, particularly on performing arts and music, which are estimated to have lost 90% and 76% of turnover respectively between 2019 and 2020.

The Commission has marshalled significant resources to support recovery in all sectors of the European economy, primarily through the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The budget for the new Creative Europe programme (2021-2027) has also been significantly increased, with the political support of the European Parliament; this will help relaunch pan-European cultural cooperation.

On 17 March 2021, the Commission adopted a communication on a common path to safe and sustained reopening. This announced that ‘to better coordinate Member States’ measures for the safe resumption of activities in the cultural and creative sector, the Commission will develop guidelines for sectors in the field of music (festivals, venues), audiovisual (film festivals and markets, cinemas, production sets), performing arts (festivals, venues), exhibition spaces such as museums or galleries, libraries and cultural heritage sites’.

The Commission is currently consulting stakeholders from the cultural and creative sector to inform the development of these guidelines, and will also liaise with Member States’ experts to this effect.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Kuwait has a large stateless population that has faced widespread, systematic repression since the establishment of the State of Kuwait. This population, known in Arabic as bidoon jinsiya, meaning ‘without nationality’ (hereafter ‘the Bidoon’), is a minority in Kuwait. They are estimated to represent 10 % of the total population in the country. Prior to Kuwait’s independence in 1961, the Bidoon were treated equally as Kuwaiti citizens and enjoyed the same freedoms and rights. After independence, they were no longer considered citizens and various laws stripped them of their basic rights, as they were deemed ‘illegal residents’. The Bidoon are systematically deprived of their social and economic rights, such as the right to nationality, the right to education and the right to healthcare.

1. Will the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ask the Kuwaiti Government to abolish legislation that criminalises peaceful expression of opinion and protest (such as voicing criticism of the Kuwaiti Government’s mistreatment of the Bidoon), including via social media?

2. Will he urge the Government of Kuwait to release all political prisoners imprisoned for defending the rights of the so-called Bidoon community?

Answer given by High Representative and Vice-President Borrell on behalf of the European Commission

The promotion and protection of human rights are at the heart of the EU’s foreign policy and the bilateral relations between the EU and Kuwait are no exception.

The European External Action Service (EEAS), notably through the EU Delegation in Kuwait, is actively monitoring the overall human rights situation in the country. In 2020, the EEAS launched a Human Rights dialogue with Kuwait aiming to contribute to improvement on main issues of concern, including the status of so-called Bidoons and freedom of expression both offline and online. Furthermore, the EEAS has engaged with Civil Society Organisations defending the rights of so-called Bidoons.

The second edition of the EU-Kuwait Human Rights dialogue, held on 30th March 2021, provided another opportunity to reiterate the EU’s principled position on human rights, exchange views on latest developments in this field and in particular ask for updates about actions undertaken by the authorities to improve the situation of the so-called Bidoons.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

On 1 January 2021, new EU rules entered into force banning the export of unsorted plastic waste from the EU to non‑OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. In recent years, there has been a huge growth in the production of plastic and consequently the amount of plastic waste. Only around 30 % of plastic waste in the EU is collected for recycling. Around half of this amount is exported for further processing in countries outside the EU.

Considering the lack of adequate recycling infrastructure in the EU to deal with the remaining unsorted plastic waste locally, there has been growing concern among environmental non-governmental organisations about the risk of excessive quantities of plastic waste – which previously would have been exported – ending up being incinerated or dumped in landfills.

1. How will the Commission ensure that the Member States manage the excessive amounts of plastic waste not exported to third countries in ways that are not harmful to the natural and human environment?

2. Besides its important efforts to reduce plastic waste by restricting the use and production of certain plastics, is the Commission planning any concrete incentives to enable investments in new and necessary recycling facilities?

Answer given by Commissioner Sinkevičius on behalf of the European Commission

The European Green Deal indicates that the EU should take greater responsibility for its waste and stop exporting its waste challenges abroad. The new rules on the shipments of plastic waste, which entered in force in January 2021, show that these commitments are turned into binding requirements. The Commission is also planning to propose a revision of the EU waste shipments rules in 2021.

Keeping waste in the EU represents opportunities for the transition to a circular economy in Europe. Dealing with a surplus waste domestically might require investments in waste infrastructure in Member States.

This is also needed to attain the ambitious EU waste legislation targets underpinned by performant extended producer responsibility schemes, which should cover the costs of proper waste management of many plastic products.

As set out in the new Circular Economy Action Plan, the Commission will harness the potential of EU financing instruments to support investments for the transition to a circular economy. This includes funding available under the Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2021-2027.

In addition, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which is the key instrument at the heart of the EUR 750 billion NextGenerationEU, can support modernising waste management systems. This includes separate collection, sorting, reuse and recycling, and circular economy innovations.

As part of the strategic dialogues, the Commission is currently encouraging Member States to include reforms and investments accelerating the transition to the circular economy in their national plans.

The Commission also supports initiatives to boost the demand for recycled plastics in the EU, in line with the Plastics Strategy.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

In its proposal for a Council recommendation on strengthened cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases (COM(2018)0244), the Commission set out its intention to examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card for people in the EU by no later than 2021. This vaccination card would take into account national vaccination schedules, be compatible with electronic immunisation information systems and be accredited for cross-border use, thereby reducing duplications.

The adoption of a common vaccination card is even more urgent in light of the imminent roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines. People in the EU who have received the vaccine should be able to prove this to authorities in an easy, effective manner without having their personal data and privacy compromised. The vaccination card could facilitate travel during the pandemic, strengthen the case for vaccines, support immunisation monitoring, and ultimately bring an end to pandemic restrictions through active acquired immunity. A common vaccination card for COVID-19 could contribute to the long-term management of the pandemic while serving as the foundation for a general European card for all vaccines in the future.

Given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, does the Commission intend to present a proposal for a common vaccination card in 2021, and how will such a proposal guarantee the protection of personal data, privacy and the preservation of fundamental rights?

Answer given by Commissioner Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission is carrying out a feasibility study for the development of a common EU citizens’ vaccination card. This is a pre-COVID-19 initiative required for the implementation of the Council Recommendation on strengthened cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases from 2018.

However, the Commission acknowledges the urgent need for a common approach to certification for COVID-19 vaccination.

To facilitate safe free movement in the EU, the Commission has presented a proposal to create a Digital Green Certificate system, which includes support for vaccination certificates, but also for test results and recovery certificates. It should be noted that the regulation on Digital Green Certificates only covers COVID-19 vaccinations, and is proposed to only be in force for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, after the pandemic other more stable tools will be needed to also support other vaccinations. A possible common EU citizens’ vaccination card and the use of vaccination data through the currently operational MyHealth @ EU infrastructure are examples of such tools. Data protection issues are of high importance, and they have been already extensively taken into account in the MyHealth @ EU infrastructure.

The ongoing work on certification of COVID-19 vaccination will take the feasibility study for the development of a common EU citizens’ vaccination card duly into account.

According to the roadmap for the implementation of the Council Recommendation, the Commission will present a proposal for a common EU citizens’ vaccination card in 2022. The actual form and content will depend on the feasibility study.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

On 23 October 2020, Der Spiegel published its investigation entitled ‘EU Border Agency Frontex Complicit in Greek Refugee Pushback Campaign’. During the LIBE Committee of 6 July 2020, Mr Leggeri denied any knowledge of pushbacks by the Greek authorities, except for one event he labelled as a ‘misunderstanding’. Despite the above, the article shows that Frontex officials had information of at least six incidents where the Greek authorities had carried out pushbacks, without offering its help to migrants in distress and despite the obligation of the Code of Conduct of Frontex officers to prevent refoulements. This includes an incident that took place on 8 June 2020, where the Frontex ship MAI 1103 blocked a migrant boat, purposely generated dangerous waves preventing its advance, and left the site once the Greek authorities had arrived and pushed back the boat.

1. What measures are the Commission and Frontex considering taking in order to ensure that the above incidents are not repeated?

2. Does the Commission know whether Mr Leggeri did not in fact have any knowledge of the above incidents during his appearance at the LIBE Committee?

3. In the light of the above, what position does it take regarding the ensuing political responsibilities that Frontex must bear?

Answer given by Commissioner Johansson on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission takes the allegations of pushbacks very seriously. In line with EC law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of non-refoulement must be respected in the exercise of border management.

In addition to two regular meetings of the Frontex Management Board in November 2020 and January 2021, the Commission requested extraordinary Management Board meetings, which were convened on 10 November 2020, 9 December 2020 and 5 March 2021, to discuss the allegations.

In its meeting of 10 November 2020, the Management Board decided to set up a working group to the Management Board to further examine this matter, in line with the distribution of responsibilities under Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.

The Commission was represented in that working group and has submitted a number of questions to the Executive Director, with a view to obtaining further clarifications. On invitation, a representative of the European Parliament participated in the meetings of the Management Board on this matter.

The Executive Director of Frontex informed the Commission by letter of 27 October 2020 about the preliminary results of the Agency’s internal inquiry into the incidents reported by the media, stressing that so far Frontex had not found any documents or other materials substantiating any accusations of violations of fundamental rights or the Frontex Code of Conduct by deployed officers.

The final report of the working group and the conclusions adopted by the Management Board on 5 March 2021 have been published on the Agency’s website.

Having an effective and well-functioning Agency for the management of the external borders, which guarantees the protection of fundamental rights in the exercise of its functions, is a priority for the Commission. To that effect, the Commission will continue to provide support and advice to the Agency to ensure the effective implementation of its mandate.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The EU is carrying out a twinning project with the Israeli government to support the implementation of Israel’s waste management strategy, including through the transfer of know-how on waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration.

Israel’s first WtE plant is to be built in the illegal settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. It would burn Israeli waste in the occupied Palestinian territory, in violation of international law and without consulting the Palestinians. This is currently the only WtE facility being built, as the government froze plans for the construction of other WtE plants in Israel.

Therefore, much of the benefit of the EU twinning project would go to the Ma’ale Adumim plant, even if the EU does not fund it directly. This appears to conflict with the EU’s 2013 guidelines to prevent EU funding flowing to settlements. It also clashes with the EU’s commitment to ensure that twinning projects with Israel contribute to the two-state solution.

1. Can the EU confirm its opposition to the planned Ma’ale Adumim waste facility?

2. Will it stop the twinning project immediately unless Israel stop the Ma’ale Adumim plan?

3. Will it ensure that future twinning projects do not benefit the settlements, and instead contribute to peace?

Answer given by Commissioner Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission

The ongoing Twinning project is supporting Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection in the establishment of an adequate regulatory framework, the implementation of the national strategy and strengthening institutional capacities. The EU does not finance the construction of the waste to energy plant in Ma’ale Adumim and the Twinning project is not involved in the choice of the location of physical infrastructure.

As repeatedly stated in Council Conclusions, the EU and its Member States consider that Israeli settlements in territories occupied by Israel since 1967 are illegal under international law. The EU is also committed to ensure that, in line with international law, all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

Financing agreements for Twinning projects with Israel include a territorial clause that indicates their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. They are also subject to the guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU.

Compliance is monitored throughout the project lifecycle, including in steering committees, quarterly progress reports, mission reports and monitoring of activities.

In line with the guidelines, any activity or part thereof included in an application for an EU grant or prize which does not meet the requirements set out in the guidelines is considered as ineligible and not as part of the application for the purpose of its further evaluation.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

On 18 November 2020, the German newspaper Der Spiegel published a report on illegal push‑backs at the Croatian border. The report documents how Croatian border officials forcibly pushed asylum seekers back across the border into Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, Frontex has been recording videos at Croatia’s external border, where push‑backs and serious human rights violations have taken place.

1. In view of the reliability of the source and the video evidence provided, will the Commission open an investigation into the allegations against Croatian border officials and Frontex without undue delay, while taking into account existing footage by Frontex?

2. Croatian border officials are evidently not acting in line with the Schengen Borders Code. What does that mean for a future accession of Croatia to the Schengen Area?

3. Croatian border officials have violated international and EU law. These violations include, among others Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 and Article 21 of Directive 2011/95/EU. In view of these violations, what steps – besides potentially opening infringement proceedings against the Croatian Government – will the Commission take in response to these events?

Answer given by Commissioner Johansson on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission takes all reports of pushbacks allegations very seriously. The Commission does not have powers to investigate alleged misconduct of Member States’ law enforcement authorities, but it closely monitors the way in which fundamental rights are complied with and expects Member States to investigate and take action as appropriate. Frontex has no personnel or assets deployed at the external land borders of Croatia.

Respect of fundamental rights is an important part of the Schengen acquis. In its 2019 Communication, the Commission concluded that Croatia has taken the measures needed to ensure that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis are met. Croatia should continue working consistently on the implementation of all the ongoing actions to ensure these conditions continue to be met. On 17 November 2020 the Commission, together with the Fundamental Rights Agency carried out a monitoring visit in Croatia. Its main purpose was to assess the current situation and discuss the setting up of an effective and independent monitoring mechanism to deal in a coherent and transparent way with reported and possible future incidents of fundamental rights violations at the border.

In addition, the Commission has regular bilateral contacts with Croatia requesting information on the allegations and the investigations that the authorities must carry out. Regular meetings are organised also with the Croatian Ombudswoman, international or non-governmental organisations to receive updates about incidents.

The Commission is closely engaged with Croatia and relevant stakeholders with a view to setting up the independent monitoring mechanism and increase transparency in the follow-up of incidents.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The Slovenian Government is putting the nation’s film and audio-visual creative industry in serious jeopardy due to its repressive economic policy, bureaucratic obstacles and its lack of commitment to funding the Slovenian Film Centre. Since March 2020, the Government has blocked the majority of financial state budget transfers intended for the Slovenian Film Centre. Over 30 feature films are waiting for the financial support that they were due to receive from the Slovenian Film Centre. Currently, all production and post-production processes in Slovenia have been halted. As a result, independent producers are unable to meet the co-production obligations they have with their international partners. Projects receiving support from the Creative Europe MEDIA Programme and Eurimages have also been put on hold.

In March 2020, the Slovenian Ministry of Culture advised the Slovenian Film Centre to stop publishing new calls for development and production funding support. The Slovenian Film Centre was instructed not to take any additional financial obligations, on the basis of the information published before the COVID-19 outbreak.

Given that such governmental action, or the lack thereof, run counter to European democratic values and creative freedom:

What will the Commission do to support the Slovenian film industry as regards its creation, cultural expression and promotion of European ideas and values?

Answer given by Commissioner Breton on behalf of the European Commission

Through the Creative Europe MEDIA programme, the Commission supports the development of coproduction and the circulation of European films across the EU and the participating countries. As such, participation in Creative Europe MEDIA builds upon well-functioning national funding systems and a shared commitment among Member States to support the internationalisation of their audiovisual industries.

The Commission has followed closely the developments in Slovenia given the decision of the Slovenian Government to suspend the financing of actions in support of the audiovisual sector carried out by the Slovenian Film Centre, particularly as regards its potential impact on the participation of Slovenian audiovisual companies and professionals in the Creative Europe-MEDIA programme.

The Commission welcomes the decision of the Slovenian government, taken at the end of December 2020, to release the approved funds for the Slovenian Film Centre. This decision has enabled the Slovenian Film Centre to execute most of the payments to Slovenian filmmakers, producers and actors.

The Commission policy for the European audiovisual sector follows the action areas set out in the recently adopted Media and Audiovisual Action Plan, i.e. recover for the audiovisual companies, transform the audiovisual industry and finally, enable and empower innovation in the sector. The Commission expects that such actions will contribute to strengthening this sector, as well as to preserving creation and cultural expression and to promoting European ideas and values.

 

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a series of tests in reading, mathematics and science, which monitor performance of 15-year-olds every three years. Based on PISA results, the effectiveness of a country’s education system is measured.

Within the EU, PISA results are particularly important, because they feed into the ‘Education and Training 2020’ (ET2020) strategic cooperation framework. While, in principle, every 15-year-old can be selected to sit the PISA test, countries are allowed to exclude up to 5 % of the eligible population according to certain criteria. Consequently, the percentage of students with disabilities remains extremely low. This goes against Article 24 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires the provision of an inclusive education system at all levels.

1. Did the Commission take into account the under-representation of students with disabilities in PISA, which resulted in misleading information about the reality of each country’s education system being used when determining the ET2020 benchmarks, and does it intend to take this into account when evaluating whether the benchmarks have been achieved?

2. Will the Commission engage with the OECD to make the PISA test more inclusive, and a tool for measuring progress towards CRPD implementation at EU level?

Answer given by Commissioner Gabriel on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission uses the Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) as one of several sources when looking at the strengths and weaknesses of education systems in the EU Member States and determining benchmarks.

The PISA assessment is generally considered to be a reliable source of comparable data on educational attainment across many countries around the world. However, results from international educational assessments like PISA should always be interpreted with caution, as their measurements do not capture everything.

One omission in PISA is indeed that some students are excluded from the test for various reasons, for example because of disabilities. So the exclusion of students from PISA might vary slightly between countries, but does not significantly impact the overall results.

Both the OECD and the Commission consider the inclusion of all students in the education system to be of great importance. To meet this end, the longer-term strategy for PISA aims at making the assessment more inclusive by widening the access of PISA for students with disabilities and other special education needs.

This will provide data on a wider group of students in the future and thus even more accurate information on the performance of education systems in EU Member States.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The State aid Temporary Framework has enabled Member States to provide all the liquidity that businesses need to face the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Due to the current situation, the framework still needs to be improved and extended to support businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), on the road to recovery. SMEs are still particularly exposed and some sectors are still suffering from administrative closures. All the temporary framework sections have been extended until June 2021 and recapitalisation support will now be available until September 2021.

1. Would the Commission consider an extension until 31 December 2021, since it is still impossible to predict when SMEs will be able to resume their activities in full?

2. In view of the continuing uncertainty surrounding the health situation, which is holding back recovery and forcing some firms to suspend or limit their activities, does the Commission intend to extend the deadlines for the repayment of State aid by extending the duration of aid in the form of loan guarantees and subsidised interest rates to ten years instead of the six years initially planned?

Answer given by Commissioner Vestageron behalf of the European Commission

1. As the coronavirus outbreak persists longer than hoped for, the Commission needs to keep making sure that Member States can provide businesses with the necessary support to see it through. On 28 January 2021, the Commission therefore adopted a fifth amendment of the Temporary Framework providing, among other things, for the prolongation of that framework until 31 December 2021. Furthermore, taking into account the continued economic uncertainty and prolonged government measures to limit economic activity in order to stop the spread of the virus, the amendment also increases the ceilings set out in the Temporary Framework for certain support measures:

a. With regard to limited amounts of aid granted under the Temporary Framework, the previous ceilings per company are now effectively doubled (taking into account the availability of de minimis support). The new ceilings are EUR 225 000 per company active in the primary production of agricultural products, EUR 270 000 per company active in the fishery and aquaculture sector, and EUR 1.8 million per company active in all other sectors. As before, these can be combined with de minimis aid of up to EUR 200 000 per company (up to EUR 30 000 per company operating in the fishery and aquaculture sector and up to EUR 25 000 per company operating in the agriculture sector) over a period of three financial years, subject to complying with the requirements of the relevant de minimis regulations.

b. For companies especially hit by the coronavirus crisis, with turnover losses of at least 30% during the eligible period compared to the same period of 2019, the State can contribute to the part of the fixed costs of companies that are not covered by their revenues, in an amount up to EUR 10 million per company (previously EUR 3 million).

2. As before, the duration of loan guarantees and subsidised interest rates granted under the Temporary Framework can be modulated with other characteristics of those measures, so that, for example, a lower guarantee coverage could offset a longer duration, which could go up to eight years.

/0 Comments/by