# Official Journal C 84E/2004

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 84E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 473 April 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 84E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 473 April 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   (Information) |
| | EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1) |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0021/03 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the CommissionSubject: Appointment of senior staff in the European Commission — medical service | 1 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0335/03 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: A new generation of mercenaries | 2 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0561/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Hunger strike by Mr Jebali | 3 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0646/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Smear campaign against Mohammed Charfi | 3 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0561/03 and E-0646/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0620/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany (Supplementary Answer) | 4 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0759/03 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the CommissionSubject: The European Commission’s medical service | 5 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0844/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with management consultants (Supplementary Answer) | 6 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-1350/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border investment | 8 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-1595/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border payments in euro (Supplementary Answer) | 9 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-1728/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Fight against the abuse of human beings and the sexual abuse of children | 10 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-1940/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Stamp duty exemption scheme | 12 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-1941/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Stamp duty exemption scheme | 12 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1940/03 and E-1941/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-1974/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of earthquake victims in Attica | 13 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-2103/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border investment | 14 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-2141/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: German road tolls | 14 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-2243/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Distortions of competition by German goods-vehicle toll | 15 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2141/03 and P-2243/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-2195/03 by Michael Cashman to the CouncilSubject: Counterfeiting and piracy | 15 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-2210/03 by Claude Moraes to the CouncilSubject: Progress on asylum in Thessaloniki | 16 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-2258/03 by Erik Meijer to the CouncilSubject: Keeping new refugees away from EU territory by building reception camps in the future Member States or further afield | 16 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2210/03 and E-2258/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-2302/03 by Miguel Martínez Martínez to the CouncilSubject: Murder of the young Spanish voluntary worker Ana Isabel Sánchez Torralba in Equatorial Guinea | 17 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-2373/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Assessment of the COM in tobacco | 18 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2419/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CouncilSubject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria | 20 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-2433/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Quota for sugar production in the autonomous region of the Azores | 21 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-2434/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CouncilSubject: Penalisation of Portuguese farmers | 22 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-2444/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CouncilSubject: US naval base in Guantanamo Bay | 23 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-2449/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Conservation of hedgerows | 24 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-2455/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: cash flow audit and value for money study by way of supplementary measures to clarify what happened and prevent any recurrence | 24 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-2477/03 by Miet Smet to the CouncilSubject: Women’s rights in Afghanistan | 26 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-2482/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CouncilSubject: Prevention against the risk of forest fires: Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 | 27 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2498/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Investment | 28 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-2515/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee on the Eurostat Task Force | 28 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2516/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat Task Force and OLAF independence | 29 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-2530/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat Task Force | 29 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2515/03, E-2516/03 and P-2530/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-2562/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan | 31 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-2609/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Products in respect of which payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield | 32 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-2624/03 by Michel-Ange Scarbonchi to the CouncilSubject: Establishment of a European civil protection corps | 32 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-2665/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: European citizenship financing | 34 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-2680/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CouncilSubject: Setting up a United Nations Interim Administration in Chechnya | 35 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-2735/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Costs of using Microsoft software | 36 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2760/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Mexillón de Galicia (Galician mussels) — protected designation of origin (PDO) | 36 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-2764/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CouncilSubject: National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros | 37 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2778/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Criteria for the assignment and removal of special adviser status for officials and their disappearance from the Commission’s establishment plan | 38 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-2808/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Risks of hormone therapies | 39 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-2902/03 by Miet Smet to the CouncilSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature | 40 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-2942/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet | 41 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-2945/03 by Dana Scallon to the CouncilSubject: Specific programme for research | 42 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-2952/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CouncilSubject: Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria | 43 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3014/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: European market in car insurance | 43 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3015/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Third-party insurance for cars and the new Code | 44 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3014/03 and E-3015/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-3036/03 by Niall Andrews to the CouncilSubject: Tackling hunger in the world | 44 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3041/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Serious defects in Greek ambulances (Supplementary Answer) | 45 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3050/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: European Court of Human Rights judgment against Turkey | 47 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-3053/03 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: HIV/AIDS in China | 48 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3060/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Cost of Turkey joining the EU | 48 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3064/03 by Bernd Lange and Wilhelm Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Vehicle emissions outside of the test cycle | 49 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3104/03 by Marianne Eriksson, Piia-Noora Kauppi and Joke Swiebel to the CouncilSubject: Funding EQUAL projects and sexual orientation discrimination | 49 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3115/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State | 50 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3116/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Illegal imports of textile products from China | 52 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3121/03 by Nelly Maes to the CouncilSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes | 53 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3127/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Bank accounts and freedom of movement | 53 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3146/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Waterways and cultural tourism between Switzerland and the Adriatic | 54 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3191/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alleged violation of Community company law by Telecom Italia in the Telekom Serbia affair | 55 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3214/03 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees | 57 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3333/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees in China | 57 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3214/03 and P-3333/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3234/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Export of lottery tickets from one country to another | 58 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3359/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries | 59 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3387/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Increases in the cost of motor insurance - data sources | 60 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3448/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Operation of quarries in a protected area | 62 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3491/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Single payment within the reform of the COM in olive oil | 63 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3504/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Rhineland-Palatinate between January 1997 and December 2002 (Supplementary Answer) | 65 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3524/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Eco-point scheme in Austria | 65 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-3539/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Windfarms in EU special areas of conservation | 66 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-3563/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention | 67 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3594/03 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the CommissionSubject: Novel Foods Regulation EC No 258/97, marketing of noni products in the EU | 68 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3597/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Tendering processes for development and humanitarian assistance | 70 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3599/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Payable Internet services | 71 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-3619/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Enlarging the Son Sant Joan de Palma de Mallorca airport (Balearic Islands) | 72 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3628/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Galicia and Portugal as part of the European growth initiative | 73 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3629/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Galicia, other parts of Spain and the French border | 74 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3643/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil | 75 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-3653/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Interpretative guide to the Birds Directive | 76 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3655/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting of euro notes and coins | 77 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3668/03 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna | 78 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3669/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Camarles monkey farm | 79 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3673/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber | 80 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3677/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Prato | 81 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3678/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni | 82 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3679/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pesaro | 82 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3680/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Florence | 82 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3681/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa | 83 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3682/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona | 83 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3683/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Carrara | 83 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3684/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno | 84 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3685/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata | 84 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3686/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa | 84 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3687/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pistoia | 85 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3688/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Perugia | 85 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3689/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Siena | 85 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3677/03, E-3678/03, E-3679/03, E-3680/03, E-3681/03, E-3682/03, E-3683/03, E-3684/03, E-3685/03, E-3686/03, E-3687/03, E-3688/03 and E-3689/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3704/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Terni | 86 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3705/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Ancona | 87 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3706/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Carrara | 87 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3707/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Florence | 87 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3708/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Livorno | 88 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3709/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Macerata | 88 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3710/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Massa | 88 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3711/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Perugia | 89 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3712/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pesaro | 89 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3713/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pisa | 89 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3714/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Prato | 90 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3715/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Siena | 90 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3716/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pistoia | 90 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3717/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Massa | 91 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3721/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Carrara | 91 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3722/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Florence | 91 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3723/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Livorno | 92 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3724/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Macerata | 92 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3725/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Ancona | 92 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3726/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pesaro | 93 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3727/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pisa | 93 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3728/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pistoia | 93 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3729/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Prato | 94 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3730/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Siena | 94 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3731/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Terni | 94 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3704/03, E-3705/03, E-3706/03, E-3707/03, E-3708/03, E-3709/03, E-3710/03, E-3711/03, E-3712/03, E-3713/03, E-3714/03, E-3715/03, E-3716/03, E-3717/03, E-3721/03, E-3722/03, E-3723/03, E-3724/03, E-3725/03, E-3726/03, E-3727/03, E-3728/03, E-3729/03, E-3730/03 and E-3731/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3719/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of the risk inherent in zinc | 95 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3778/03 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the CommissionSubject: Protection of personal rights | 96 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3779/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Terni under the action programme to promote civil protection | 97 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3780/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Cararra under the action programme to promote civil protection | 97 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3781/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Florence under the action programme to promote civil protection | 97 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3782/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection | 98 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3783/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil protection | 98 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3784/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil protection | 98 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3785/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection | 99 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3786/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil protection | 99 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3787/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection | 99 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3788/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pistoia under the action programme to promote civil protection | 100 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3789/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Prato the action programme to promote civil protection | 100 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3790/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Siena under the action programme to promote civil protection | 100 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3791/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Ancona under the action programme to promote civil protection | 101 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3779/03, E-3780/03, E-3781/03, E-3782/03, E-3783/03, E-3784/03, E-3785/03, E-3786/03, E-3787/03, E-3788/03, E-3789/03, E-3790/03 and E-3791/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3817/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Road tolls charged on the Attic Highway in Athens | 101 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3822/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Serious negative impact on habitats and species of Community interest on the island of Mallorca | 102 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3828/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships | 104 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-3831/03 by André Brie to the CommissionSubject: Current European-American negotiations on the use of Galileo | 105 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3842/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Attacks on democracy in Mauritania | 106 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3865/03 by Marie Isler Béguin to the CommissionSubject: Balearic Islands Sectoral Roads Masterplan | 107 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3869/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Impact of specific residential building schemes on SIC ES 5223037 | 108 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3887/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Measures to tackle legionnaires’ disease | 109 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3895/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Conflicts between the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Emissions Trading Directive and the goal of ensuring security of supply: the case of Austria | 110 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3898/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Otters in UK rivers | 111 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3904/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: European satellite agency - Galileo programme | 112 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3906/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Single currency and cost-of-living increases | 114 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-3909/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Framework directive | 115 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3912/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction in the North Sea | 117 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3928/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Forests and building cooperatives in Greece | 117 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3930/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece | 118 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-3931/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of areas devastated by the summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal (Supplementary Answer). | 119 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3934/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: US visa provisions which result in refusal to permit the return of Europeans who have a permanent residence and permanent job in the USA | 120 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3939/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Failure by drivers of refuse and gritting lorries to comply with the rules on driving and rest periods when carrying out public service tasks | 121 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3952/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Standards on laying gas pipes | 122 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3963/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Geroi Sevastopolya - Safety at Sea | 122 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3969/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor’s office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union | 124 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3983/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework | 125 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3985/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Sourcing of timber for the refurbishment of Commission buildings | 126 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3986/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive waste dumps in Sicily | 127 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3987/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Galileo | 127 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-3990/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: Posting/delivery of tender documents | 128 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-4002/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Violation of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society | 129 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-4006/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Residence permits and the difficulty of obtaining them | 130 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-4015/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Toxic sites | 131 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-4021/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for research in Portugal | 132 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-4026/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Precious Metals Directive | 133 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-4028/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: The euro and public opinion | 133 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-4029/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Euro-dollar exchange rate | 134 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-4032/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: UK contribution to the EU budget | 135 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-4033/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Censoring of the word condom in the Commission’s official press release to mark World Aids Day at the request of Mr Prodi’s office | 135 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-4034/03 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the CommissionSubject: Protecting people and livestock against wolves and bears | 136 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-4036/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Noni products | 137 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-4037/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Health reform and natural remedies in Germany | 139 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-4057/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European telecommunications networks | 139 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-4061/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Noise from aircraft at Eleftherios Venizelos airport | 141 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-4067/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions | 142 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-4070/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Conventions, Charter and Constitution: the costs | 143 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0074/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: European Convention | 144 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-4070/03 and P-0074/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-4075/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Contracts of doctors working for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI) | 145 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-4085/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Practical problems in application of Directive 1999/44/EC | 145 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0009/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Protection of Netherlands exports of radar detectors by exempting them from a domestic ban | 147 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0010/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Lower levels of protection against BSE infection in beef from America in the EU compared with Japan, Russia and other countries | 148 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0017/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Adaptation of Council Directive 92/58/EEC on minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work | 150 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0019/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Júcar-Vinalopó project | 151 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0020/04 by Fiorella Ghilardotti, Massimo Carraro and Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Bridge over the Straits of Messina | 151 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0021/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Urgent adoption of a directive on aircraft safety imposing stringent and uniform checks | 153 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0038/04 by Juan Izquierdo Collado to the CommissionSubject: Illegal imports of dolphins | 153 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0042/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Structural Fund decommitments in Scotland | 154 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0062/04 by Giorgio Calò and Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany | 156 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0070/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Chrome-plating factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez | 157 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0075/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Flight safety checks | 157 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0078/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Schengen Information System and missing persons | 158 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0082/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Clinical Trials Directive | 159 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0084/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Ban on shipping of oil in single-hull tankers and the use of flags of convenience | 160 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0088/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Excessively high premiums charged by Dutch medical insurance companies to policyholders in neighbouring States to offset deficits in the United States | 161 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0098/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of Sok Yoeun | 162 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0100/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Language arrangements on the Europa website | 163 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0122/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Debt and European professional football | 164 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0128/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Application of age limits to recruitment of workers already having fixed-term contracts over a number of years in the public sector in Greece | 165 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0138/04 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Use of passenger data for CAPPS II testing | 166 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0139/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Financial support for undersea optic-fibre cable link for the islands of Flores and Corvo (Azores) | 167 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0151/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Shortage of intensive care units in Greece (Supplementary Answer) | 168 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0159/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Trial of women for illegal abortion in Portugal | 169 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0160/04 by Uma Aaltonen to the CommissionSubject: Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives | 169 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0179/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: National immigration plans | 170 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0180/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece | 171 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0192/04 by Philip Bradbourn to the CommissionSubject: Repayments under n+2 rule | 172 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0195/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Access to medical treatment in Member States | 172 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0196/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Temporary agency workers directive | 173 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0197/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Use of State funds to reduce electricity prices for industrial users | 174 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0200/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: The Bob Programme and road accidents | 175 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0219/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Malta’s accession and maritime safety | 176 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0225/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Food safety and developing countries | 177 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0238/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the directive on the safety of cableways | 178 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0242/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Parkinson’s disease | 179 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0244/04 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan - cost and price of water | 180 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0245/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Impact assessment of OPTA decisions | 181 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0250/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Retirement age of football referees | 182 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0251/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of bread | 183 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0256/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) | 184 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0257/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) | 185 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0258/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Cambodia: Assassination of members of the Opposition | 186 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0260/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Blue tongue disease - protection of stock farmers in Lazio | 186 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0261/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Reported Spanish ban on motorcycles towing trailers | 188 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0262/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Sewage treatment plants | 189 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0263/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Safety at Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station | 189 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0269/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Consumer credit | 190 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0278/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme | 191 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0281/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies | 192 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0287/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Mislabelling of seal oil in the EU | 193 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0294/04 by Herman Vermeer to the CommissionSubject: Disclosure of the rate structure for the Central European Pipeline System | 194 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0295/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Age discrimination in the provision of goods and services | 194 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0299/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Compact disc pricing in the EU | 195 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0303/04 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Booking tickets for travel in another country | 196 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0304/04 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the CommissionSubject: Prison guards | 196 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0315/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Language programme for minority languages | 197 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0316/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: European voluntary and solidarity service | 198 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0317/04 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Pork by-products | 199 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0338/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Food safety | 199 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0340/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the European Community | 200 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0342/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the opening up of the Belgian railways market | 201 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0359/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Impact of lack of health care standards on free movement of labour and citizens | 202 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0366/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Shoppers’ rights in Ireland under EU law | 203 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0370/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors | 204 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0376/04 by Luciana Sbarbati to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni | 204 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0388/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Terni steelworks: closure of the Thyssen-Krupp plant | 205 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0445/04 by Mario Mastella to the CommissionSubject: Crisis at the AST plant in Terni | 206 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-0376/04, P-0388/04 and P-0445/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0381/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Operation of reception classes — second operational programme: education and initial training | 208 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0383/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Postage rates | 209 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0393/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Animal By-Products Regulation | 210 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0514/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up question to Written Question E-2133/02 on discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age | 211 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0580/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption | 212 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2) |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0225/03 by Guido Podestà to the CommissionSubject: AIDS in eastern Europe | 213 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-2374/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission (Supplementary Answer) | 214 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-2454/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: alteration of the Commission’s position on recognising and tackling fraud and consequences for independent investigation by OLAF | 214 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2573/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan | 215 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-2688/03 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Reduction in VAT rates for labour-intensive sectors | 217 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2837/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a new airline from Olympic Airways (Supplementary Answer) | 218 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3075/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Freedom and pluralism in information | 219 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3114/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State | 220 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3122/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes | 221 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3123/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CouncilSubject: Deportation of Chechens | 222 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3139/03 by Peter Liese to the CouncilSubject: EU preparedness in the event of biological attack | 223 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3148/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for institutions working with women and girls who are victims of prostitution | 223 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3206/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CouncilSubject: Search made of the offices of the newspaper Il Giornale: violation of press freedom in Italy | 224 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3242/03 by Jan Wiersma to the CouncilSubject: The Buy American Act in the American defence budget | 225 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-3246/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CouncilSubject: Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism | 226 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3248/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CouncilSubject: Possibility of tracking cellphone users | 227 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3251/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CouncilSubject: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) | 228 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3267/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CouncilSubject: Qualified majority voting | 228 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-3282/03 by Anne André-Léonard to the CouncilSubject: Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters’ certificates for recreational craft | 233 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-3313/03 by Hans-Peter Martin to the CouncilSubject: Negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty | 233 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3349/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: Eurobarometer opinion poll | 234 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3354/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CouncilSubject: Minority language groups in Greece and official statistics | 235 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3358/03 by Chris Davies to the CouncilSubject: Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries | 236 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-3414/03 by Marianne Eriksson to the CouncilSubject: Estonia and directives on equal opportunities | 237 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-3415/03 by Francesco Rutelli to the CouncilSubject: Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003 | 238 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-3473/03 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CouncilSubject: Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003 | 238 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-3415/03 and P-3473/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3440/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: Human rights in China | 239 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3441/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: EU action against the Guantánamo Bay prison | 240 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3451/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CouncilSubject: Eurobarometer findings regarding the Euro and inflation | 241 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3468/03 by Bart Staes, Phillip Whitehead, Catherine Stihler and Margrietus van den Berg to the CouncilSubject: Post-polio syndrome | 242 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3495/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CouncilSubject: Colombia - ELN hostages | 242 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3499/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CouncilSubject: Romano Prodi - Manifesto | 243 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3525/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Size of apples | 244 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-3526/03 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CouncilSubject: The difference between unanimity and consensus | 245 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3531/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CouncilSubject: Statements by the President of the Transport Council after the informal Transport Council in Verona | 246 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3533/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CouncilSubject: European Space Policy - budget | 246 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3572/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Lloyds of London | 247 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3575/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: EU Identity document for the disabled | 248 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3621/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Presence of chlophen in food produced in various regions of Greece (Supplementary Answer) | 249 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3661/03 by Konrad Schwaiger and Karl von Wogau to the CommissionSubject: Imports of preserved mushrooms from China | 250 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3812/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Tempus programme in Romania | 250 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3829/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The milk quota situation after enlargement: Galicia’s production allowance | 251 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3854/03 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s plans for reforming State aid rules | 252 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3855/03 by Michl Ebner and Paolo Pastorelli to the CommissionSubject: Airport security | 253 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3856/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Contracts under the Eighth EDF | 254 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3858/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Invalidity pensions in the European Union | 255 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3866/03 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Bird-trapping in Cyprus | 256 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3876/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Exceeding of the basic cultivation areas for 2003 and application of penalties | 256 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3883/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: Community funding for telecommunications (Supplementary Answer) | 257 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3885/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: possible checks on funding granted by the EU (Supplementary Answer) | 258 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3897/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Unsustainable fishery by-catches | 260 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3900/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Trieste-Divaca rail link | 261 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3968/03 by Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European transport network | 261 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3900/03 and E-3968/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3905/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat enquiry: OLAF task force disbanded | 262 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3907/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Commission proposal to reduce fishery catches in 2004, in Galician waters and those of the Iberian peninsula in general | 263 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3914/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Expansion of Palma de Mallorca Airport | 265 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3921/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Illegal practices in use of water from the Segura Basin (Murcia, Spain) | 266 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3923/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting | 266 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3938/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Use of surveying firms, contracted by the public authorities, to measure plot areas in connection with participation in EU set-aside schemes | 268 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3940/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Distortions in the sugar trade | 269 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3941/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam | 270 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3944/03 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Fish-stock recovery plans | 271 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3945/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Use of EU funds for terrorist organisations and checks on funding for the PNA | 271 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3947/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for pioneering solar energy plants | 273 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3961/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Jules Muis - functioning of the Commission | 274 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3962/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portugal - toll charges and people carriers | 277 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3979/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Planning amnesty in Ibiza | 278 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3988/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes and Eurostat | 279 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3994/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Culture and languages programme | 280 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3995/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Projects relating to the information society | 280 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3996/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: New work methods and development of e-commerce | 281 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-4003/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube | 281 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-4007/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Earthquake risk prevention | 282 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-4017/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Publicisation of the EU among the blind in the Community | 284 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-4018/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Standardised use of the European flag on aircraft of EU airlines | 285 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-4020/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Congo river basin | 286 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-4035/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Implementation in Portugal of the regulation on automobile distribution | 287 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-4045/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Contamination of groundwater in Catalonia | 288 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-4046/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Software and filtering systems | 289 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-4047/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Safe use of the Internet | 290 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-4048/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: EDF budgetisation | 291 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-4054/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: National waters within the EU’s EEZ | 292 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-4065/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) | 292 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-4078/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Galileo | 293 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0006/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily | 294 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0016/04 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products | 295 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0031/04 by Astrid Lulling to the CommissionSubject: Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies | 296 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0035/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Unavailability for commercial reasons of information on insufficient airline safety standards | 297 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0039/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Amount of EU legislative acts | 298 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0043/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trade impact of the euro | 298 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0045/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Failure to carry out prior checks and a simultaneous environmental impact assessment on the entire building project coordinated by Impreglio SpA on the coastline of Sa Sea — Tentizzos in the municipality of Bosa (NU), Sardinia, Italy | 299 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0046/04 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: Advertisements for jobs in European organisations requiring English mother tongue | 301 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0086/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Language requirements in EU job advertisements | 301 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0051/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the letter to the Commission from six Member States following the failure of the Brussels IGC | 302 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0063/04 by Alexander de Roo and Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Incineration of railway sleepers | 303 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0066/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Parmalat bankruptcy | 304 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0093/04 by Martin Kastler to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in humans and prostitution in the German-Czech border area | 305 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0112/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Dolphins | 306 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0121/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Integrated waste management in the municipality of Casale sul Sile (Treviso) | 307 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0123/04 by Dorette Corbey and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Containers of arsenic pentoxide at sea | 308 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0131/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tragedy involving Albanian migrants | 309 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0132/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Improved aviation safety through more effective channelling of information | 311 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0133/04 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Fishery control agency in Vigo | 312 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0134/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Collapse of Parmalat and insufficient checks by Bankitalia | 312 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0135/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Rome central dairy: safeguarding jobs and protecting farmers | 313 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0136/04 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: GM food and crop imports | 314 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0140/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Media access in the Azores and Madeira outlying regions | 315 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0141/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Child labour | 316 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0145/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: International Rice Year | 317 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0149/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Revenue from denationalisation used to cover current expenditure | 319 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0153/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Use of the term Chechen network without any proven involvement of Chechens | 319 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0155/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Disadvantaging certain categories of passengers through further restrictions on the sale of rail tickets from the Netherlands to other European destinations | 320 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0156/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 321 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0161/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 322 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0162/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 322 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0163/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 322 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0164/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 323 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0165/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 323 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0166/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 323 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0167/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 324 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0168/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 324 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0169/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 324 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0170/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 325 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0171/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 325 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0172/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 325 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0173/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 325 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0174/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 326 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0175/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 326 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0176/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 326 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0177/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems | 326 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-0156/04, E-0161/04, E-0162/04, E-0163/04, E-0164/04, E-0165/04, E-0166/04, E-0167/04, E-0168/04, E-0169/04, E-0170/04, E-0171/04, E-0172/04, E-0173/04, E-0174/04, E-0175/04, E-0176/04 and E-0177/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0184/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Eircom telephone line rental charges in Ireland | 329 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0191/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Financial collapse of Parmalat: protecting savers and setting up a supervisory body | 330 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0201/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic discrimination in job descriptions | 332 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0210/04 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in job advertisements | 332 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0236/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Job advertisements for native speakers | 332 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0241/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination - native speakers | 333 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04 and E-0241/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0203/04 by Alexander de Roo and Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Fuel Quality Law - Royal Decree 1700/2003 | 334 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0211/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Allegations of manoeuvring to seize property owned by building cooperatives in Greece | 335 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0227/04 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen to the CommissionSubject: Alcohol ignition interlock devices (alcolocks) | 335 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0228/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Timely development and production of drugs to combat the merging of avian influenza virus H5N1 and influenza A occurring in humans | 336 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0235/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Violation of human rights of Cacarica communities in Colombia | 338 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0237/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Fees at the European Schools | 339 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0239/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians and Buddhists in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic | 340 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0240/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Huge discount from banks to the Democratici di Sinistra party in violation of the principle of free competition | 341 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0243/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Relocation and unemployment (Supplementary Answer) | 342 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0264/04 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Community funding for the Greek National Cadastre | 344 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0265/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece | 345 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0274/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Arsenic acid | 346 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0277/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: EU participation in a project to build a multi-purpose hall in Brussels | 348 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0279/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Embryo and stem-cell research | 349 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0280/04 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: European Commission representation in Delhi | 350 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0282/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Identification of the outermost regions on official Community maps | 351 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0283/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Public procurement policy in timer | 352 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0285/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Landfill on Malta | 353 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0290/04 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Scope of Directive 97/11/EC | 354 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0291/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Road accidents in European Union countries | 354 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0293/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Threat to the Güe springs from the construction of the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain) | 355 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0298/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Relations between the EU and Libya and human rights in Libya | 356 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0307/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Genetically modified crops | 357 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0308/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: The French language at the Commission | 358 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0311/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of the activities of the rail freight company Ikea Rail within two years of its foundation and the status of the EU subsidy of EUR 500000 awarded to this experiment | 359 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0324/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: New Belgian levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France | 360 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0325/04 by Willi Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2002/25/EC | 361 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0329/04 by Jillian Evans and Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Endometriosis | 362 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0332/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Mislabelling of arsenic acid as pentoxide by the Netherlands as a result of mistakes in unambiguous new nomenclature for hazardous chemicals | 363 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0336/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Embryo research financed from the EU budget | 364 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0339/04 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines | 365 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0344/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Conseillers hors classe | 366 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0345/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European Transport Networks | 367 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0346/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Differential pricing | 368 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0349/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Serious irregularities involving the EU as regards the establishment of the private University of Formello (Rome) | 369 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0353/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of funding for a virtual health information project | 370 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0354/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the creation of a multi-purpose auditorium | 371 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0355/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Funding for young artists | 372 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0356/04 by Pasqualina Napoletano, Giorgio Ruffolo, Guido Sacconi and Walter Veltroni to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni | 372 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0390/04 by Francesco Rutelli to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the electrical steel department of AST in Terni | 373 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0395/04 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the closure of the steelworks in Terni | 373 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0356/04, E-0390/04 and E-0395/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0360/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Failure to include directory services among universal service obligations | 374 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0361/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of Irish drinking water | 375 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0363/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Complaint P2000/4974 | 376 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0364/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Packaging Waste Directive and Ireland | 377 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0365/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Separation of Accounts Directive | 377 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0367/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Animal experiments in Ireland | 378 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0368/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Irish Government charges and the Seveso II Directive | 379 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0369/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Public consultation during the preparation of emergency plans under the Seveso II Directive | 379 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0368/04 and E-0369/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0372/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Interrogation of the editor Alexander Podrabinek | 380 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0375/04 by Martin Kastler to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the consumption of alcopops by young people | 381 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0379/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Dismissal of pregnant workers | 382 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0380/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Contract-holders at the Fire Service | 383 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0385/04 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Commercial activities of Ordnance Survey | 383 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0386/04 by Jean Saint-Josse to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines | 385 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0387/04 by Yves Butel to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines | 386 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0391/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Hair dye and cancer risks | 386 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0392/04 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: The EU’s continuing capacity to receive large quotas of immigrants from third-world countries | 388 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0405/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Outbreak of avian influenza | 389 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0415/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Review of decision on Norrmejerier | 390 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0417/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Sackings from the Finex Group factory (Supplementary Answer) | 390 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0421/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed | 391 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0422/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed Lubian to Orense rail link giving central access to Galicia | 393 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0428/04 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: The future of publicly-owned regional airports in the light of the recent decision on Charleroi Airport, in Belgium, and Ryanair | 393 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0431/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: European Commission plan for a vertical-takeoff convertiplane | 394 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0432/04 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Passive smoking | 395 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0433/04 by Seán Ó Neachtain to the CommissionSubject: Status of Gaeilige for recruitment to the EU Institutions | 397 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0434/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 0 | 398 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0435/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 1 | 398 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0436/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 2 | 398 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0437/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 5 | 399 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0438/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: EURO 6 | 399 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0439/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Nitrogen oxide emission limits | 400 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0440/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: Particulate emission limits | 400 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0441/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: Particulate filters | 400 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0434/04, E-0435/04, E-0436/04, E-0437/04, E-0438/04, E-0439/04, E-0440/04 and E-0441/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0453/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Exploitation of Portuguese workers in France | 402 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0455/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Illegal fishing - Azores and Madeira | 403 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0456/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Increase in consumer complaints in Greece | 404 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0458/04 by Brian Simpson and Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Avian flu and the ban on poultry from Thailand | 405 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0459/04 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Closure of Thyssen Krupp plants in Terni | 406 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0460/04 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Belgium — European leader in the combating of salmonella enteritidis — pasteurisation of eggs | 407 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0464/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Brax - sackings and relocation | 408 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0467/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Mission expenses | 409 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0471/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Misuse of the model European disabled person’s parking card | 409 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0475/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy | 410 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0538/04 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy — English mother tongue or native speaker | 411 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0710/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: EU notices of vacancy for English mother-tongue candidates | 411 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0475/04, E-0538/04 and E-0710/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0476/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission cars | 412 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0478/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission Cars | 412 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0480/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission open competitions | 413 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0490/04 by Harlem Désir to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment of the Pakistani journalist Khawar Mehdi Rizvi who was arrested in Karachi on 14 December 2003 together with the French journalists Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau who wrote for L’Express magazine | 414 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0494/04 by Carlos Carnero González to the CommissionSubject: Exemption from the environmental impact assessment by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain, for work on the M30 motorway | 415 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0496/04 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries | 416 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0497/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain | 416 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0503/04 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC | 417 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0504/04 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Incineration of meat-and-bone meal | 418 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0505/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Use of meat-and-bone meal in animal feed | 419 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0507/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Outermost regions | 420 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0515/04 by Luís Queiró to the CommissionSubject: Scientific and technical opinions for management of Community fisheries | 421 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0524/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: The Constitution | 421 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0530/04 by Bernd Lange, Karin Scheele and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Euronorm standards and particulates emitted from diesel vehicles | 422 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0531/04 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the CommissionSubject: Construction of a salt-water spa and discharge of thermal salt water from the spa into the River Spree without an environmental impact assessment | 424 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0532/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear submarines docked at Santo Stefano Island, Sardinia | 425 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0535/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of disability status across the European Union | 426 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0537/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: The role of Esperanto in maintaining language equality efficiently | 427 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0561/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and Nitrates Directive | 428 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0563/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Ireland | 428 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0561/04 and E-0563/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0565/04 by Martin Callanan to the CommissionSubject: Clarification on the scope of the Recreational Craft Directive | 429 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0567/04 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the CommissionSubject: Limitation of public exposure to electromagnetic fields | 430 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0569/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Leonardo da Vinci programme | 431 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0586/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Horse passports | 432 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0597/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement | 433 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0601/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Firearms licensing | 434 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0603/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Marking down foodstuffs for quick sale | 435 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0604/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Sale of foodstuffs that are past their sell-by dates | 435 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0603/04 and E-0604/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0605/04 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector | 436 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0625/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: If the French State prevents Jean-Marie Le Pen from standing in the regional elections it would represent a serious breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty | 437 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0633/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Integration of the Commission in Brussels | 438 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0635/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) | 439 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0641/04 by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf to the CommissionSubject: Results of testing for the presence of GMOs in seeds since 2000 | 440 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0644/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Further information on question concerning portability of supplementary pension rights | 441 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0645/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Expert advice in the JHA sector | 441 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0653/04 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Question E-0760/03 — Operating conditions for incineration plants under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 | 442 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0656/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Mobile neutering units | 443 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0704/04 by Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Transport of poultry | 443 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0709/04 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel crisis (Rieti) | 444 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0717/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Johne’s disease | 445 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0728/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding | 446 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0734/04 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the CommissionSubject: Skiing safety and standardisation | 446 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0769/04 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Safety of public buildings in areas of high seismic risk | 447 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0787/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs | 448 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0799/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC | 449 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0823/04 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of degrees and denial of employment | 450 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0824/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination of pet farm animals | 451 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0849/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Late payment in commercial operations | 452 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0865/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: European subsidies paid to the Flemish community | 453 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-1064/04 by André Brie to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony | 454 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3) |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3897/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: The costs of enlargement and the national contributions of the existing Member States | 455 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0160/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities | 456 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0162/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Duties on canned Asiatic tuna | 457 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0496/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Palestine: hatred spreads to football | 458 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0501/03 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the CommissionSubject: European Parliament resolution on the memorandum presented by the Commission to the Council on income taxation and equal treatment for men and women (A2-0055/85) | 459 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0661/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines | 460 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0806/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Violations of Community law in EU Member States | 461 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0857/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Purchase of Corus by Outokumpu | 462 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0907/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Azerbaijan | 462 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0911/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities | 464 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0947/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Provisions enacted by the Italian Government with regard to electromagnetic pollution | 465 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-1271/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva in Cuba | 467 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-1306/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Further development of European legislation on car emissions | 467 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-1367/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: EU agriculture subsidies and elimination of local producers | 468 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-1511/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Financial corrections | 470 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-1570/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Criticism of the active involvement of the Flemish government in environmental rehabilitation, allegedly in breach of the promotion of free competition | 471 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-1571/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Solutions for environmental problems in Flanders without increasing dependence on private firms | 472 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-1671/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up question to question E-3529/02 on statutory regulation of holiday pay | 473 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-1696/03 by Danielle Darras to the CommissionSubject: European funds and subcontracting | 474 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-1697/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Consumer fraud involving cat and dog skins | 475 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-1700/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Financial corrections | 475 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-1731/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty | 476 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-1736/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Commission presence at the Fifth World Avocado Congress | 477 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-1830/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Letters to the Greek authorities regarding the proper use of Community funds and compliance with Community (regional policy) legislation | 478 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-1857/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Protecting slots for regional air routes | 478 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-1886/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Iraqi cultural heritage | 479 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-1936/03 by Anne Jensen to the CommissionSubject: Port safety | 479 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-2007/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Vietnam: continuing imprisonment of the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do | 480 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-2154/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects (Supplementary Answer) | 481 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-2158/03 by Danielle Darras to the CommissionSubject: Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue | 482 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2257/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Georgia | 483 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-2280/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Train warning signals | 484 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2297/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive | 485 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-2332/03 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC | 486 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-2341/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Letters to the Greek authorities on the proper use of Community Regional Policy funds | 487 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-2350/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Darwin Mounds | 487 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-2413/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Funding for children’s choral exchanges | 488 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-2421/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Bullfrogs | 489 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-2431/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: HIV/AIDS situation in Central Asian countries | 489 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-2445/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Illegal importations of bushmeat | 492 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2496/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: World current account discrepancy | 493 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-2503/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Car hire companies | 493 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2526/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: EU egg producers | 494 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-2572/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Attacks on freedom of religion in Georgia affecting members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic and Orthodox confessions and Jehovah’s Witnesses | 495 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-2681/03 by Robert Goebbels to the CommissionSubject: Approval of Luxembourg secondary school leaving certificates in Belgium | 496 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-2817/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Revamped Olympic Airlines | 497 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-2861/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: GM crops | 498 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3042/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Installation of telecommunications masts | 499 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-3109/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: Hydrogenated fats | 501 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3170/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Problems regarding the Attica suburban railway project | 501 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3171/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Progress towards completion of the Athens tramway | 502 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3170/03 and E-3171/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3297/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - food contingency plan | 503 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3330/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring them into Member States with the strictest controls | 504 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3363/03 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Socio-economic impact of extractive industry in northern Europe | 506 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3409/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Appointment of privatisation advisers for the Post Office Savings Bank | 507 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3512/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Probable impact of the strike of employees at the National Statistical Service of Greece on the publication of European indicators | 508 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3586/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for an Italian company linked to Romano Prodi | 508 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3852/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Appointments and transparency in the Commission | 509 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3884/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: suspected infringement of rules on funding granted by the EU (Supplementary Answer) | 510 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-3930/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (Supplementary Answer) | 511 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3955/03 by Heide Rühle to the CommissionSubject: Interpretation of environmental information directives | 512 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3964/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Endocrine disruptors in drinking water — reaction to the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-2565/03 | 513 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3976/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Complexity of simplifying the Community acquis | 515 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-3999/03 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca to the CommissionSubject: Internal control standard 5 — Sensitive functions: Modalities relating to the implementation of compulsory mobility | 516 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-4043/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas for 2004 | 517 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-4069/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: European Maritime Safety Agency | 519 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-4071/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: The Growth and Stability Pact again | 520 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-4076/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Widespread desiccation of pine trees in Greece | 521 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-4079/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bird trapping on Cyprus | 522 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0001/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State (Supplementary Answer) | 522 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0011/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Tunis summit and immigration policy | 525 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0015/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Apple orchards | 526 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0022/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Support for the Po Valley dairy farmers’ campaign | 527 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0033/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition by the introduction of regional premiums | 527 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0048/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Location of the European fisheries monitoring agency in Galicia | 529 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0056/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Mr Prodi’s statement on the need for each Member State or group of Member States to take the initiative and move forward on the basis of reinforced cooperation if the draft constitution is not adopted in the near future | 529 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0059/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare and subsidies following the reform of the CAP | 530 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0079/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Flight Times and Duty Limitations Proposal — COM(2002)0030 | 531 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0094/04 byAdriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in tobacco | 531 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0099/04 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Lucio Manisco, Mario Borghezio, Roberto Bigliardo, Luisa Morgantini, Carlo Fatuzzo, Giovanni Fava, Marco Pannella, Generoso Andria, Vitaliano Gemelli, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Sebastiano Musumeci, Pasqualina Napoletano, Amalia Sartori, Giovanni Pittella, Mariotto Segni, Luigi Cocilovo, Walter Veltroni, Giorgio Ruffolo, Raffaele Costa, Luigi Cesaro, Paolo Pastorelli, Adriana Poli Bortone, Fiorella Ghilardotti, Giovanni Procacci, Claudio Martelli, Mauro Nobilia, Antonio Mussa, Renato Brunetta and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Burma | 532 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0102/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Paying for water | 533 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0103/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Water for human consumption | 534 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0105/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Curious approach adopted by the Greek government to the stock exchange | 535 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0111/04 by Minerva Malliori to the CommissionSubject: Dioxins in farm-raised salmon | 536 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0119/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Repression of Lao-Hmong communities in the Saysomboune region (Laos) | 537 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0127/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community budget and the financial perspective | 538 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0129/04 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: Invasive alien species | 539 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0130/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of drinking water | 540 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0152/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Collection of biometric data at Eleftherios Venizelos airport, their processing by an external partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data | 541 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0186/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal | 542 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0189/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tunisian regime’s repressive measures targeting human rights activists | 543 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0190/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Creating transparency regarding ownership of the company Italtrend (RE), beneficiary of consulting contracts from the European Commission worth millions of euro | 544 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0194/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Flight and duty time limitations for airline pilots | 546 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0198/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a Community body for the study of unexplained atmospheric phenomena | 546 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0199/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Ethnic census | 547 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0204/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Financial reporting | 548 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0205/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Protecting SMEs against multinationals: the case of Ford dealers in Italy | 549 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0209/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Selection procedures of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work | 550 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0212/04 by Simon Murphy to the CommissionSubject: Driftnets | 550 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0220/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Threats to Po Valley producers as a result of the euro’s excessive rise against the dollar | 552 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0222/04 by María Ayuso González to the CommissionSubject: Cotton | 552 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0230/04 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003 (Supplementary Answer) | 553 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0232/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Euro | 554 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0246/04 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Start of work on the Ebro Transfer | 555 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0247/04 by Elisabeth Jeggle and Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Revision of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs | 556 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0252/04 by Raquel Cardoso to the CommissionSubject: Financing of the Natura 2000 network | 557 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0255/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Highways plan for Majorca | 557 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0259/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of tolls on state highway 47, Valsugana | 559 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0271/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeit euro coins and banknotes | 560 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0273/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Automar srl — concessionaire for Mercedes Benz motor vehicles | 561 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0275/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights | 563 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0276/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution | 564 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0286/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: EU monkey experiments | 565 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0289/04 by Marco Cappato, Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Emma Bonino, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Cultural genocide in China | 565 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0292/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Ship-building in Italy | 567 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0296/04 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Interim procedure on state aids paid in accession countries | 567 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0297/04 by Theodorus Bouwman to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU law of Spanish mining company Uminsa and possible frauds | 569 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0301/04 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Swedish nuclear power and the internal market | 570 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0305/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Request for PDO for Sant Andrea Piemonte rice | 571 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0323/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Stage reached in examining the territorial monopoly of German chimney-sweeps | 572 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0327/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: County Clare and Objective I of the Structural Fund | 573 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0348/04 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Offensive material on websites in Member States | 574 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0357/04 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen to the CommissionSubject: Sparsely populated areas in future regional policy | 575 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0371/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s failure to fix penalties for ozone-depleting substances | 576 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0373/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of environmental protection legislation | 577 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0389/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco and Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights | 579 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0394/04 by Francesco Fiori, Giorgio Lisi and Georges Garot to the CommissionSubject: Measures against hunger in the EU | 580 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0398/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Child slavery networks | 581 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0399/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Secret detention in the USA of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities because their visa is not in order | 582 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0402/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Crossborder hospital in La Cerdanya | 582 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0416/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Goose hunting in Zeeland | 583 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0420/04 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of drinking water | 584 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0423/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal | 585 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0424/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting wickerwork craftsmen in the Madeira Autonomous Region | 587 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0426/04 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Timetable for processing rural development projects | 588 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0444/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with legislation on health and safety at work | 590 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0451/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Food aid and food security programme | 591 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0457/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Strain on main roads | 591 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0469/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Aviation health warnings | 592 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0470/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: State aid to the Rome milk plant | 592 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0472/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Common External Tariffs | 594 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0473/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Pension adjustment | 596 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0474/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Closure of certain language sections of the European Schools | 597 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0477/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Banana trade | 599 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0482/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat | 599 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0483/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Rural development: young farmers | 600 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0484/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Rural development: less-favoured areas | 601 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0485/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU forest strategy: Forest Focus | 602 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0486/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: The new CAP and direct aid to the enlargement countries | 603 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0488/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU dairy sector: milk quotas and enlargement | 604 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0489/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Gender violence in the EU: need for European legislation | 605 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0491/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Land Use Plans Implementation Law in Valencia - LRAU | 606 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0499/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Reclaiming subsidies granted for setting up industrial activity | 607 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0509/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - hunger and the Portuguese community | 608 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0512/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Daphne programme | 609 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0519/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons | 610 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0520/04 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean | 611 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0522/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Prize draw mailing scams | 612 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0523/04 by Emmanouil Mastorakis to the CommissionSubject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks (Supplementary Answer) | 613 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0528/04 by Guido Sacconi, Vincenzo Lavarra and Pasqualina Napoletano to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products | 614 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0529/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Access to the waters of the Azores autonomous region | 616 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0533/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Horse passport | 617 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0540/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Post 2006 financial perspectives | 617 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0543/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: the declining contribution of EU funds to the survival of small farmers in a context of low consumer prices and low world market prices (Supplementary Answer) | 618 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0544/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries (Supplementary Answer) | 620 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0546/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Involvement of the EU in a development project in the Mexican federal state of Chiapas which is causing the resumption of an armed conflict | 621 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0547/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Continued levying of a tax in Germany which, pursuant to an EU directive, ought no longer to exist in 2004, and use of the revenue from it | 623 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0549/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment in employment and occupation | 624 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0550/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Employment by the European Commission of the radical Islamic thinker Tariq Ramadan in the capacity of a consultant | 625 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0551/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland | 626 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0552/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Right to collective action | 626 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0553/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Revision of pregnant workers directive | 627 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0554/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Paid paternity leave | 627 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0555/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Illiteracy and social exclusion | 627 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0556/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Definition of criteria for the recognition of disabilities | 627 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0557/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Directive on social protection on new forms of employment | 628 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0558/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Directive on individual dismissals | 628 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0552/04, E-0553/04, E-0554/04, E-0555/04, E-0556/04, E-0557/04 and E-0558/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0566/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Music censorship in China | 629 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0570/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Commission officials on leave | 630 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0576/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Electioneering activities of Romano Prodi | 631 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0581/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Relationships between the media and recording companies | 632 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0588/04 by Antonio Tajani, Giuseppe Gargani and Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Appointment and promotion of senior Commission officials | 633 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0589/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of an airport in the administrative and political capital of Spain: use of Cohesion Fund monies granted to Spain for extending infrastructure in Madrid | 634 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0592/04 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Aid to stud farms | 635 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0610/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Irish stud farms | 635 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0592/04 and E-0610/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0607/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Seasonal work | 636 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0612/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for Portuguese students studying for a master’s degree | 636 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0613/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Burma | 637 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0614/04 by Harlem Désir to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the 280-employee DHL site at Blanc Mesnil (France) | 637 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0619/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by extreme weather conditions in Greece | 639 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0622/04 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Ban on entering Russia for Danish journalist | 640 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0627/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain | 640 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0628/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks | 641 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0632/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Hunger strike by Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari | 642 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0634/04 by Giovanni Procacci to the CommissionSubject: Possible infringement by Italy | 643 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0636/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Europe and the future of young people | 644 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0642/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Threat to survival of Italian small communes | 645 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0643/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome | 646 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0646/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Massacre in Lira (northern Uganda) | 646 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0650/04 by Mauro Nobilia to the CommissionSubject: Eliminating the distinction between packaging/packaging waste and goods/goods waste | 648 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0651/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Position of the French language in the European institutions | 649 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0652/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea | 649 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0659/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: NGO and civil society funding - European Convention | 650 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0671/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s failure to report on CO2 emissions from new passenger cars | 651 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0672/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of pharmacists’ professional qualifications | 651 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0673/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Third level education charges for EU citizens | 652 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0679/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - border controls | 653 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0680/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - disease transmission | 653 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0679/04 and E-0680/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0688/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Application of Regulation No 1788/2003 Article 10(3) | 654 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0691/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Systemic insecticides | 655 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0696/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Funding by the Culture 2000 programme of books or translations of books which extol nationalistic policies and their despotic practices | 656 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0700/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Use of European Social Fund resources in connection with the Edunet project | 657 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0702/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Greenland halibut recovery: extraordinary measures to be adopted by the Commission | 658 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0703/04 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Member State contributions to the Community Budget | 659 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0707/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli | 660 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0711/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Specific characteristics of mountain regions and Community policy | 661 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0716/04 by Luis Berenguer Fuster and Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: Radio alarms | 662 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0720/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Export subsidies for oats | 663 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0722/04 by María Herranz García to the CommissionSubject: COM in olive oil | 664 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0726/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Aid for producer organisations in the fisheries sector | 665 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0727/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Information on the performance reserve for the Lazio Region | 665 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0735/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Funding of projects designed to transfer water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain | 666 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0736/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Support for regions which will not be included in Structural Fund Objective 1 on account of the so-called statistical effect | 667 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0737/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Student participation in the Erasmus programme | 667 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0739/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: The EU’s future regional policy for the outermost Mediterranean regions | 668 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0766/04 by Giorgio Celli to the CommissionSubject: Financing of the Llubí-Crestaxt-Pollença watercourse (Balearic Islands) | 669 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0768/04 by Ole Sørensen to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of war criminals to Denmark | 670 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0770/04 by Seán Ó Neachtain to the CommissionSubject: EU citizenship | 671 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0792/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Return of property by Turkey | 672 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0796/04 by Michel Hansenne to the CommissionSubject: Lift safety | 673 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0802/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering | 673 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0803/04 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Application for a grant by Mr Doriano Cataffo | 674 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0809/04 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Terrestrial trunked radio masts | 675 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0812/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of European legislation on phytosanitary products in the Abac case (Valencia) | 676 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0827/04 by María Sornosa Martínez and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop to the CommissionSubject: Extension of San Sebastián airport | 678 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0836/04 by Regina Bastos to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 679 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0837/04 by Joaquim Piscarreta to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 680 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0838/04 by Raquel Cardoso to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 680 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0839/04 by João Gouveia to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 681 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0840/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 682 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-0836/04, P-0837/04, P-0838/04, P-0839/04 and P-0840/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0846/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention | 684 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0857/04 by Vasco Graça Moura to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 685 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0858/04 by Teresa Almeida Garrett to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 685 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-0857/04 and P-0858/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0859/04 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Hair dyes and serious damage to health | 687 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0860/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: The Constitution and funding | 688 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0870/04 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the CommissionSubject: Work permits for workers contracted out in Italy | 689 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0871/04 by José Pacheco Pereira to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector | 690 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0872/04 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Precautionary principle | 692 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0875/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations in northern Uganda | 693 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0885/04 byPaulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: List of deep-sea, pelagic and demersal fish species | 694 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0887/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Health implications of pet bird imports | 694 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0892/04 by Véronique De Keyser to the CommissionSubject: European Super-Commissioner | 695 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0900/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Breastfeeding in public places | 696 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0928/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Equality of treatment in the written test for competition COM/A/3/02, sector 2 | 696 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0934/04 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Breakdown of EU staff by grades A, B, C and D | 697 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0949/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties for the Italian steel industry | 698 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0957/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: The stated intention of deactivating Sorefame-Bombardier | 699 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0966/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Chimney sweep monopoly | 700 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0974/04 by Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: EU-Switzerland agreements and implementation of Rönfeldt-Thévenon case law | 702 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-1040/04 by Enrico Ferri to the CommissionSubject: Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation | 703 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-1222/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: River access | 704 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 4) |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3150/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Application of the Stability Pact | 705 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-3201/02 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion | 706 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-3821/02 by Elena Paciotti to the CommissionSubject: Violation of asylum rights in the EU | 707 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3826/02 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Expulsion from Italy of the Al-Shari family | 707 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-3821/02 and P-3826/02 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3867/02 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Salvage of the ferry Le Joola | 708 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3868/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten and Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Netherlands Student Grants Act | 709 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0797/04 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Student grants and free movement of persons | 710 |
| Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3868/02 and E-0797/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0017/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Support for Afghanistan | 711 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0093/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: German capital gains tax | 712 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0129/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programme in Phnom Penh | 712 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0182/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women’s rights in Iran | 713 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0199/03 by Margot Keßler to the CommissionSubject: Western Sahara — Visit of European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation — Human Rights | 714 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0243/03 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: Kenya Westlands-St Austins road scheme | 715 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0453/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Boris Shikhmuradov | 716 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0562/03 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of journalists in Gibraltar | 717 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0587/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Balkan sugar | 717 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-1040/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Perugia | 719 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-1046/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Terni | 719 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/03 and E-1046/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-1163/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni | 720 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-1396/03 by Margie Sudre to the CommissionSubject: Uniform application of a reduced rate of VAT in the restaurant sector | 721 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-1398/03 by Arie Oostlander to the CommissionSubject: Publication of the fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen | 722 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-1437/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Direct payments of EUR 10 million per month in EU aid to the Palestinian Authority | 723 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-1457/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Euratom/Distortions in the electricity market | 724 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-1500/03 by Florence Kuntz to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the Iraqi archaeological heritage | 724 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-1509/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CommissionSubject: Sacking of Iraq’s cultural and artistic heritage — the role of the European Union | 725 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1500/03 and P-1509/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-1510/03 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Direct financial assistance to the Palestine National Authority | 726 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-1525/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Privatisation of art treasures as a result of widespread thefts from museums and inadequate checks on the international art trade | 726 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-1939/03 by Giles Chichester to the CommissionSubject: Commission quarterly briefings and Small Business Europe: the participation of government-funded national bodies in Commission briefings | 727 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-1983/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a secondary school in the small town of Rizokarpaso in Turkish-occupied Cyprus | 728 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-2033/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Re-opening of Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso | 729 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1983/03 and E-2033/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-2376/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CommissionSubject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria | 729 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-2748/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Rizokarpasso primary school | 730 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3129/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Guinea-Bissau, Commission support | 731 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-3142/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Career movements of Directors-General | 732 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3311/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Rotation principle in Directorates-General | 732 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-3142/03 and E-3311/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-3154/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Mobile telephone safety (Supplementary Answer) | 733 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3325/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Community expenditure | 734 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-3464/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: The use of Tetrapol technology in the EU | 735 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3470/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Health risk reports relating to Tetrapol use | 736 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3464/03 and E-3470/03 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3471/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Buildings in Es Trenc-Salobrar de Campos | 736 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-3514/03 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Course financed by means of the Structural Funds (Supplementary Answer) | 737 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-3574/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: European Agreement on the transmission of applications for Legal Aid | 738 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-3625/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Standardisation of national identity documents | 738 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-3748/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato | 739 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-3832/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Global Drug Facility | 740 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-3840/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Race Directive (2000/43/EC) | 741 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-3870/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Ecological volume of the river Júcar and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer | 741 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-3924/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Seaworthiness of the Geroi Sevastopolya | 742 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-3948/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Moves by the USA or other countries to make EU Member States comply with their wishes by rewarding or penalising European companies depending on the Member State in which the company is based | 744 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-3980/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Yukos affair | 745 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-4055/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energy | 746 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-4056/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the environmental acquis | 747 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-4066/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Biometric passports | 748 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-4068/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful toll demanded for the Turin-Milan motorway | 749 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0003/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Trade in wild birds | 750 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0023/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Inadequate information to the Commission concerning the Bothnia Line | 751 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0030/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Landfill and gravel extraction sites | 752 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0044/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Val Jumela | 752 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0050/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Conflict over pollution — between the Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) and the people and municipal authorities of Pontevedra | 753 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0053/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia) arising from the ban on building merchant vessels: action of the Commission and the Spanish government | 755 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0054/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with the Kyoto protocol by the Spanish state | 756 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0068/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families | 757 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0071/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish National Hydrological Plan dam on the River Narla in Lugo (Galicia) a scheduled Site of Community Importance within the Natura 2000 network | 758 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0077/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Waste water treatment in Ireland | 759 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0080/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Rheumatism and Biomed programme | 759 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0081/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of IPPC Directive in Ireland | 760 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0092/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Evolution of electricity prices, investment in the energy sector | 760 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0101/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Position of SMUs in the system for the funding of the EU’s research activities | 761 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0110/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Legality of certain EU decisions should the Kyoto Protocol founder | 764 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0181/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security | 765 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0182/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security | 766 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0183/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security | 766 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0181/04, E-0182/04 and E-0183/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0267/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Projects offering alternatives to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (SNHP) | 767 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0300/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Financing for the new Athens airport (Supplementary Answer) | 768 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0309/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Extension of TAEIX’s area of activity to the Western Balkans | 769 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0313/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Galway incinerator | 770 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0319/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Funding of research with embryonic stem cells | 771 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0326/04 by Willi Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for new fishing nets | 772 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0328/04 by Marco Cappato, Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova, Olivier Dupuis and Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Chinese New Year parade in Paris | 773 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0331/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Setting up of a regional coordination centre for social policy for the Balkans | 773 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0334/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The unchanged human rights and democracy situation in China and Hong Kong, the threat to Taiwan and the need for the arms embargo | 774 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0335/04 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Extension of operating licence for Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant | 775 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0337/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for Parmalat | 776 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0347/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Use of ACT in treatment of malaria | 777 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0350/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Travel agencies: repercussions of the Alitalia crisis on employment | 779 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0351/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Travel agencies: serious difficulties for operators and customers | 779 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0350/04 and E-0351/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0358/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Proceedings concerning the German deposit on drinks cans | 781 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0377/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Sustainable management of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean and measures to combat illegal fishing | 781 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0396/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Guantánamo-on-Thames? | 783 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0397/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Legalising irregular migrants working in the Union | 783 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0407/04 by Hugues Martin to the CommissionSubject: CRAFT Community programmes | 784 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | P-0408/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands | 786 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0410/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Aer Rianta | 787 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0412/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The regulation of exportation of timber from Indonesia | 787 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0414/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The treatment of North Korean refugees in the People’s Republic of China | 788 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0418/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Security of EC cards | 789 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0447/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Exports of peat to Italy | 790 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0448/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Research on non-human primates in Münster, Germany | 791 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0450/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeit banknotes | 792 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0452/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: INFO 2000 programme | 793 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0462/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Guinea-Bissau - Commission support | 794 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0463/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Europe - terrorism | 795 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0468/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Competition in the glass sector | 797 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0479/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission open competitions | 798 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0481/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Blue Dragon | 800 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0487/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU dairy sector: Argentina and the WTO peace clause | 800 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0498/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Community warning on Spanish productivity | 801 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0508/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portugal - nuclear waste | 802 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0511/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Provision of aid to South Africa | 804 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0525/04 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Potato ring rot | 805 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0541/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Yielding to the USA’s pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning passengers in advance of a possible agreement | 806 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0548/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Requirement to keep poultry indoors | 808 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0562/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Incidence of blue-baby syndrome in EU Member States | 809 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0564/04 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Ship-to-ship oil transfers | 810 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0568/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Final report concerning Eurostat | 811 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0573/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Start of construction work on the Brenner base tunnel | 811 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0575/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Electioneering activities of Mrs Diamantopoulou | 812 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0579/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Vasova lagoon | 813 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0582/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Application of Accounting Standard IAS 32 to co-operatives | 814 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0595/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Horse racing prizes in Greece | 815 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0600/04 by Generoso Andria to the CommissionSubject: Remuneration of amateur football managers | 816 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0602/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Global assessment of the major Ebro water transfer project | 817 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | P-0608/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: The Commission’s political intentions re GMOs | 818 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0611/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Terrorism: drawing up a European directive providing for the presence of air marshals on board aircraft. | 819 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0615/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Role of certificates in rules of origin | 820 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0618/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Decision by the Dutch parliament to expel thousands of immigrants | 822 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0621/04 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Revision of TEN-T | 822 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0623/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Schedules of airlines from third countries | 823 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0629/04 by Willi Piecyk, Gerhard Schmid and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European Networks - development of the Danube | 824 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0630/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Official Development Assistance (ODA) of the Union: funding by Member States, actions in the Balkans and application of conditionality and Community rules | 825 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0631/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of the interest rate subsidy for border regions in Greece | 826 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0637/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC) | 827 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0639/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Torrentes de Mácara on the river Ulha (Galicia): three priceless rapids threatened with destruction by the building of a dam | 829 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0647/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Urban waste water treatment in Benidorm, (Alicante province) Spain | 830 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0648/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC into Spanish law | 831 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0654/04 by Reinhold Messner to the CommissionSubject: Brenner axis | 832 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0655/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Algeria | 833 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0657/04 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Misfuelling of motor vehicles | 834 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0662/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Efforts to adopt uniform and transparent rules on valuing the assets of financial institutions and the resistance of the EFR to the IASB | 835 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0663/04 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland | 837 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | P-0664/04 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez to the CommissionSubject: Legislation on yoghurt | 838 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0668/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Irish Government’s failure to cooperate with Lough Ree investigation | 839 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0683/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Medical certificates | 840 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0685/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by countries such as America and Russia | 840 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0689/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC — competence of Member States to define occupational retirement provision | 842 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0690/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Complaints about the infringement of the property rights of building cooperatives in Greece | 843 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0692/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Invasion of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) | 844 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0693/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak, Ieke van den Burg and Joke Swiebel to the CommissionSubject: Proposal COM(2003) 657 and Directive 86/378/EEC | 845 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0694/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Auditing the Commission’s external activity | 846 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0697/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: State aid to credit unions | 846 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0698/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Tinned food and olive oil | 847 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0699/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Preserves and olive oil | 848 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0701/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Use of the appellations vintage and tawny by third countries | 848 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | P-0705/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Creation of an observatory to study the phenomenon of organised mafia-type crime and similar forms of criminality in the EU | 850 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0706/04 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Wine | 852 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0712/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Increasing the Portuguese annual sugar quota | 854 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0713/04 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Management of the risk assessment process on zinc | 855 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0714/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Conversion of ENEL’s Valdaliga Nord power station at Civitavecchia | 856 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0719/04 by Ieke van den Burg to the CommissionSubject: Training and development funds in the Netherlands as a contribution to the Lisbon strategy | 857 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0729/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Professional recognition for the police | 859 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0731/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Social and family assistance for the police | 860 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0732/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Dam-building on the international stretch of the river Minho | 861 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0738/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status | 861 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0741/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Fiscal incentives to encourage job creation | 862 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0743/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: MEDA programme and regions | 863 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0745/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Facilitating access by SMEs to risk capital | 864 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0746/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Reform in the fruit and vegetable sector | 865 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0748/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Synergy in EU funding programmes | 866 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0750/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of registering rating agencies in Europe | 867 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0751/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Streamlining the Commission’s coordination of Member States’ economic policies | 868 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0752/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Enhancing the image of the euro and the European Union in non-member countries | 868 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0753/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of the international role of the euro in transactions between eurozone countries and third countries | 869 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0754/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a European legal framework for hedge funds | 870 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0755/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Statistics relating to the harmonised consumer price index in Europe | 871 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0757/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Strengthening the role of market operators in the integration of European financial markets | 872 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0758/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Loss of investor confidence following recent financial scandals | 873 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0759/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: General framework for ensuring European financial market stability | 874 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0761/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: European passport and the sale of financial products in Europe | 874 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | P-0767/04 by Brian Crowley to the CommissionSubject: eEurope 2005 Action Plan | 875 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0771/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: La Breña II dam - compensation measures | 876 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0780/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in the United Kingdom | 877 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0781/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Liberalisation of the electricity market — licences for river diversions | 878 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0782/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Liberalisation of the electricity market — special protective provisions | 879 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0785/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Deportation of parents of Irish/EU citizens | 880 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0791/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000) | 881 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0807/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Invalidity of a civil aviation pilot’s licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences (ATPL) | 882 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0816/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of diplomas | 883 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0818/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden | 884 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0819/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: The European School in Amsterdam | 886 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | P-0825/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service challenged by the Commission | 886 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0829/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Parmatour: tourism concern owned by the Tanzi family, involved in the Parmalat crisis | 888 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0831/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Radar installation on Pico do Areeiro — Environmental impact study | 889 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0832/04 by Anne Ferreira, Ioannis Souladakis and Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Theatrical signers and audience members with hearing difficulties | 889 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0834/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Nine years’ imprisonment for supplying 0,5 grams of methadone in Russia | 890 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | P-0842/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Basis for economic growth | 891 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | P-0843/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Approval by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of the Ronchi south-Trieste high-speed rail link as part of Corridor 5 | 892 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | P-0844/04 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Aid to shipbuilding in breach of EU legislation | 894 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | P-0851/04 by Gianni Vattimo to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare | 895 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0855/04 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse to the CommissionSubject: Security in Brussels | 896 |
| 2004/C 084E/0 | E-0856/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting traditional industries | 896 |
| 2004/C 084E/1 | E-0866/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: European subsidies for the Flemish Community | 897 |
| 2004/C 084E/2 | E-0869/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: ECHO and Chechnya | 898 |
| 2004/C 084E/3 | E-0879/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Romano Prodi - new centre party | 899 |
| 2004/C 084E/4 | E-0880/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, Article 5 | 900 |
| 2004/C 084E/5 | E-0886/04 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Road toll system | 901 |
| 2004/C 084E/6 | E-0888/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Slaughterhouses in Greece | 901 |
| 2004/C 084E/7 | E-0890/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for flying instructors to give instruction | 902 |
| 2004/C 084E/8 | E-0891/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal | 903 |
| 2004/C 084E/9 | E-0893/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Costs of cross-border transfer payments | 904 |
| 2004/C 084E/00 | P-0895/04 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Dispute concerning port dues in Helsingborg | 905 |
| 2004/C 084E/01 | E-0897/04 by Monica Frassoni, Caroline Lucas, Jean Lambert, Patricia McKenna, Giorgio Celli, Kathalijne Buitenweg, Pasqualina Napoletano, Marco Cappato, Giovanni Procacci and Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect implementation in Italy of directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of laying hens | 906 |
| 2004/C 084E/02 | E-0898/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Intimidation of well-known Israeli conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of Palestinian territory by subjecting them to lengthy and repeated imprisonment | 907 |
| 2004/C 084E/03 | P-0903/04 by Ingo Friedrich to the CommissionSubject: Termination of European Documentation Centres’ (EDCs) preferential subscription to the EC/EU Official Journal (printed edition) | 908 |
| 2004/C 084E/04 | E-0906/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The Threshold for British teachers in the European Schools | 909 |
| 2004/C 084E/05 | E-0907/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the profession of optometrist | 910 |
| 2004/C 084E/06 | E-0909/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: To Serve and Protect - Netherlands Railways | 911 |
| 2004/C 084E/07 | E-0910/04 by Ingo Friedrich to the CommissionSubject: Aid for olive production; common organisation of the market in olives | 911 |
| 2004/C 084E/08 | E-0912/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Directive 2001/83/EC and Braille requirements | 912 |
| 2004/C 084E/09 | E-0915/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Directive 2001/83/EC and borderline products | 913 |
| 2004/C 084E/10 | E-0923/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme | 914 |
| 2004/C 084E/11 | E-0925/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Medical treatment for haemophilia sufferers | 914 |
| 2004/C 084E/12 | E-0926/04 by Claude Turmes to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety in the European institutions | 915 |
| 2004/C 084E/13 | E-0927/04 by Claude Turmes to the CommissionSubject: Practice of prototypes at Eur-OP | 916 |
| 2004/C 084E/14 | E-0931/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Standards on portable liquid oxygen devices | 918 |
| 2004/C 084E/15 | E-0932/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Contribution to EU economy by fisheries | 919 |
| 2004/C 084E/16 | P-0936/04 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CommissionSubject: EU Economic EU support for positive publicity | 919 |
| 2004/C 084E/17 | E-0944/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Components of small toys in food products | 920 |
| 2004/C 084E/18 | E-0951/04 by Angelika Niebler to the CommissionSubject: Interpretative notes relating to the transposition into national law of the Directives on the electricity and gas markets in the European Union | 921 |
| 2004/C 084E/19 | E-0952/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 | 922 |
| 2004/C 084E/20 | E-0953/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory practices by Romania | 923 |
| 2004/C 084E/21 | E-0960/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in recruitment procedures for European institutions | 924 |
| 2004/C 084E/22 | E-0962/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The increasing dangers to public health and the environment caused by the increase in emissions of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines | 925 |
| 2004/C 084E/23 | E-0963/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The Euro 4 standard and consequent restrictions on the fitting of particle traps to prevent the emission of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines | 925 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0962/04 and E-0963/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/24 | E-0968/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Electromagnetic Compliance Standard | 927 |
| 2004/C 084E/25 | P-1001/04 by Ulla Sandbæk to the CommissionSubject: Critical dialogue with Iranian theocracy on minorities | 928 |
| 2004/C 084E/26 | E-1011/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Extremely grave human rights situation in Vietnam and Laos | 929 |
| 2004/C 084E/27 | E-1020/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Emergency on the ferrous metals market | 929 |
| 2004/C 084E/28 | E-1024/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Olympic Airways | 930 |
| 2004/C 084E/29 | P-1026/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Axle weighing of HGVs at the German-Czech border | 931 |
| 2004/C 084E/30 | E-1033/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the public lending right in Portuguese libraries | 932 |
| 2004/C 084E/31 | E-1034/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission | 933 |
| 2004/C 084E/32 | P-1041/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Number portability in connection with mobile telephony | 934 |
| 2004/C 084E/33 | E-1042/04 by Roger Helmer and Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Pensions: discrimination against private pensions | 935 |
| 2004/C 084E/34 | E-1057/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Implications for the Community textile sector of certain trade practices on the part of China | 936 |
| 2004/C 084E/35 | P-1062/04 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Economic impact of migration following enlargement of the European Union | 937 |
| 2004/C 084E/36 | P-1063/04 by Marie-Françoise Duthu to the CommissionSubject: Russo-Chechen conflict — mediation by the European Union between the governments of Vladimir Putin and Aslan Maskhadov | 938 |
| 2004/C 084E/37 | E-1072/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Commemoration in the town of Greccio of the first crib featuring live animals | 939 |
| 2004/C 084E/38 | P-1082/04 by Adeline Hazan to the CommissionSubject: Decision taken by the Netherlands to expel more than 26000 whose applications for asylum have been rejected | 940 |
| 2004/C 084E/39 | P-1084/04 by Richard Howitt to the CommissionSubject: Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive in respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace | 941 |
| 2004/C 084E/40 | P-1088/04 by Arlene McCarthy to the CommissionSubject: Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive with respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace | 941 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-1084/04 and P-1088/04 |
| 2004/C 084E/41 | P-1085/04 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of plant health products under Directive 91/414/EEC | 942 |
| 2004/C 084E/42 | P-1087/04 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the CommissionSubject: Uncertainties regarding Finland’s Natura 2000 network | 944 |
| 2004/C 084E/43 | P-1093/04 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Staging of football matches between TSV Alemannia Aachen, a German football club, and foreign opponents at the Kerkrade Stadium in the Netherlands | 944 |
| 2004/C 084E/44 | P-1106/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination against bluetongue | 945 |
| 2004/C 084E/45 | P-1107/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application | 946 |
| 2004/C 084E/46 | P-1108/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee | 947 |
| 2004/C 084E/47 | E-1109/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income | 948 |
| 2004/C 084E/48 | E-1115/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Work Discrimination Directive 2000/78/EC in Ireland | 949 |
| 2004/C 084E/49 | P-1116/04 by Uma Aaltonen to the CommissionSubject: Sex education for children and young people in the enlarging Union | 950 |
| 2004/C 084E/50 | P-1127/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Drilling for gas a significant threat to the Waddenzee | 951 |
| 2004/C 084E/51 | E-1136/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the right to vote in European elections in Northern Ireland that have so far disenfranchised 16,5 % of the population because of a complicated system of annual individual voter registration | 952 |
| 2004/C 084E/52 | P-1151/04 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Commissioning medical treatment abroad | 952 |
| 2004/C 084E/53 | P-1167/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Regulation No 1954/2003: fishing activity in the Azores EEZ | 953 |
| 2004/C 084E/54 | P-1170/04 by Manuel dos Santos to the CommissionSubject: Construction of the Amoreiras tunnel in Lisbon | 955 |
| 2004/C 084E/55 | P-1203/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 | 956 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

2004/C 084E/1

P-0021/03 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the CommissionSubject: Appointment of senior staff in the European Commission — medical service

1

2004/C 084E/2

E-0335/03 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: A new generation of mercenaries

2

2004/C 084E/3

E-0561/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Hunger strike by Mr Jebali

3

2004/C 084E/4

E-0646/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Smear campaign against Mohammed Charfi

3

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0561/03 and E-0646/03

2004/C 084E/5

E-0620/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany (Supplementary Answer)

4

2004/C 084E/6

P-0759/03 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the CommissionSubject: The European Commission’s medical service

5

2004/C 084E/7

E-0844/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with management consultants (Supplementary Answer)

6

2004/C 084E/8

E-1350/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border investment

8

2004/C 084E/9

P-1595/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border payments in euro (Supplementary Answer)

9

2004/C 084E/0

E-1728/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Fight against the abuse of human beings and the sexual abuse of children

10

2004/C 084E/1

E-1940/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Stamp duty exemption scheme

12

2004/C 084E/2

E-1941/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Stamp duty exemption scheme

12

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1940/03 and E-1941/03

2004/C 084E/3

P-1974/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of earthquake victims in Attica

13

2004/C 084E/4

P-2103/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border investment

14

2004/C 084E/5

E-2141/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: German road tolls

14

2004/C 084E/6

P-2243/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Distortions of competition by German goods-vehicle toll

15

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2141/03 and P-2243/03

2004/C 084E/7

E-2195/03 by Michael Cashman to the CouncilSubject: Counterfeiting and piracy

15

2004/C 084E/8

E-2210/03 by Claude Moraes to the CouncilSubject: Progress on asylum in Thessaloniki

16

2004/C 084E/9

E-2258/03 by Erik Meijer to the CouncilSubject: Keeping new refugees away from EU territory by building reception camps in the future Member States or further afield

16

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2210/03 and E-2258/03

2004/C 084E/0

P-2302/03 by Miguel Martínez Martínez to the CouncilSubject: Murder of the young Spanish voluntary worker Ana Isabel Sánchez Torralba in Equatorial Guinea

17

2004/C 084E/1

P-2373/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Assessment of the COM in tobacco

18

2004/C 084E/2

E-2419/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CouncilSubject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

20

2004/C 084E/3

E-2433/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Quota for sugar production in the autonomous region of the Azores

21

2004/C 084E/4

E-2434/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CouncilSubject: Penalisation of Portuguese farmers

22

2004/C 084E/5

E-2444/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CouncilSubject: US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

23

2004/C 084E/6

E-2449/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Conservation of hedgerows

24

2004/C 084E/7

E-2455/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: cash flow audit and value for money study by way of supplementary measures to clarify what happened and prevent any recurrence

24

2004/C 084E/8

E-2477/03 by Miet Smet to the CouncilSubject: Women’s rights in Afghanistan

26

2004/C 084E/9

E-2482/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CouncilSubject: Prevention against the risk of forest fires: Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92

27

2004/C 084E/0

E-2498/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Investment

28

2004/C 084E/1

E-2515/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee on the Eurostat Task Force

28

2004/C 084E/2

E-2516/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat Task Force and OLAF independence

29

2004/C 084E/3

P-2530/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat Task Force

29

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2515/03, E-2516/03 and P-2530/03

2004/C 084E/4

E-2562/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan

31

2004/C 084E/5

P-2609/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Products in respect of which payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield

32

2004/C 084E/6

E-2624/03 by Michel-Ange Scarbonchi to the CouncilSubject: Establishment of a European civil protection corps

32

2004/C 084E/7

E-2665/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: European citizenship financing

34

2004/C 084E/8

E-2680/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CouncilSubject: Setting up a United Nations Interim Administration in Chechnya

35

2004/C 084E/9

E-2735/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Costs of using Microsoft software

36

2004/C 084E/0

E-2760/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Mexillón de Galicia (Galician mussels) — protected designation of origin (PDO)

36

2004/C 084E/1

E-2764/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CouncilSubject: National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros

37

2004/C 084E/2

E-2778/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Criteria for the assignment and removal of special adviser status for officials and their disappearance from the Commission’s establishment plan

38

2004/C 084E/3

E-2808/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Risks of hormone therapies

39

2004/C 084E/4

E-2902/03 by Miet Smet to the CouncilSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

40

2004/C 084E/5

E-2942/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet

41

2004/C 084E/6

E-2945/03 by Dana Scallon to the CouncilSubject: Specific programme for research

42

2004/C 084E/7

E-2952/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CouncilSubject: Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

43

2004/C 084E/8

E-3014/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: European market in car insurance

43

2004/C 084E/9

E-3015/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Third-party insurance for cars and the new Code

44

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3014/03 and E-3015/03

2004/C 084E/0

P-3036/03 by Niall Andrews to the CouncilSubject: Tackling hunger in the world

44

2004/C 084E/1

E-3041/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Serious defects in Greek ambulances (Supplementary Answer)

45

2004/C 084E/2

E-3050/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: European Court of Human Rights judgment against Turkey

47

2004/C 084E/3

P-3053/03 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: HIV/AIDS in China

48

2004/C 084E/4

E-3060/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Cost of Turkey joining the EU

48

2004/C 084E/5

E-3064/03 by Bernd Lange and Wilhelm Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Vehicle emissions outside of the test cycle

49

2004/C 084E/6

E-3104/03 by Marianne Eriksson, Piia-Noora Kauppi and Joke Swiebel to the CouncilSubject: Funding EQUAL projects and sexual orientation discrimination

49

2004/C 084E/7

E-3115/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State

50

2004/C 084E/8

E-3116/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Illegal imports of textile products from China

52

2004/C 084E/9

E-3121/03 by Nelly Maes to the CouncilSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

53

2004/C 084E/0

E-3127/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Bank accounts and freedom of movement

53

2004/C 084E/1

E-3146/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Waterways and cultural tourism between Switzerland and the Adriatic

54

2004/C 084E/2

E-3191/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alleged violation of Community company law by Telecom Italia in the Telekom Serbia affair

55

2004/C 084E/3

E-3214/03 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees

57

2004/C 084E/4

P-3333/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees in China

57

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3214/03 and P-3333/03

2004/C 084E/5

E-3234/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

58

2004/C 084E/6

E-3359/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries

59

2004/C 084E/7

E-3387/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Increases in the cost of motor insurance - data sources

60

2004/C 084E/8

E-3448/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Operation of quarries in a protected area

62

2004/C 084E/9

E-3491/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Single payment within the reform of the COM in olive oil

63

2004/C 084E/0

E-3504/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Rhineland-Palatinate between January 1997 and December 2002 (Supplementary Answer)

65

2004/C 084E/1

E-3524/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Eco-point scheme in Austria

65

2004/C 084E/2

P-3539/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Windfarms in EU special areas of conservation

66

2004/C 084E/3

P-3563/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention

67

2004/C 084E/4

P-3594/03 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the CommissionSubject: Novel Foods Regulation EC No 258/97, marketing of noni products in the EU

68

2004/C 084E/5

E-3597/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Tendering processes for development and humanitarian assistance

70

2004/C 084E/6

E-3599/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Payable Internet services

71

2004/C 084E/7

P-3619/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Enlarging the Son Sant Joan de Palma de Mallorca airport (Balearic Islands)

72

2004/C 084E/8

E-3628/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Galicia and Portugal as part of the European growth initiative

73

2004/C 084E/9

E-3629/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Galicia, other parts of Spain and the French border

74

2004/C 084E/0

E-3643/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil

75

2004/C 084E/1

P-3653/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Interpretative guide to the Birds Directive

76

2004/C 084E/2

E-3655/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting of euro notes and coins

77

2004/C 084E/3

E-3668/03 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna

78

2004/C 084E/4

E-3669/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Camarles monkey farm

79

2004/C 084E/5

E-3673/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber

80

2004/C 084E/6

E-3677/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Prato

81

2004/C 084E/7

E-3678/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni

82

2004/C 084E/8

E-3679/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pesaro

82

2004/C 084E/9

E-3680/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Florence

82

2004/C 084E/0

E-3681/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa

83

2004/C 084E/1

E-3682/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona

83

2004/C 084E/2

E-3683/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Carrara

83

2004/C 084E/3

E-3684/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno

84

2004/C 084E/4

E-3685/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata

84

2004/C 084E/5

E-3686/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

84

2004/C 084E/6

E-3687/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pistoia

85

2004/C 084E/7

E-3688/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Perugia

85

2004/C 084E/8

E-3689/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Siena

85

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3677/03, E-3678/03, E-3679/03, E-3680/03, E-3681/03, E-3682/03, E-3683/03, E-3684/03, E-3685/03, E-3686/03, E-3687/03, E-3688/03 and E-3689/03

2004/C 084E/9

E-3704/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Terni

86

2004/C 084E/0

E-3705/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Ancona

87

2004/C 084E/1

E-3706/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Carrara

87

2004/C 084E/2

E-3707/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Florence

87

2004/C 084E/3

E-3708/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Livorno

88

2004/C 084E/4

E-3709/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Macerata

88

2004/C 084E/5

E-3710/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Massa

88

2004/C 084E/6

E-3711/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Perugia

89

2004/C 084E/7

E-3712/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pesaro

89

2004/C 084E/8

E-3713/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pisa

89

2004/C 084E/9

E-3714/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Prato

90

2004/C 084E/0

E-3715/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Siena

90

2004/C 084E/1

E-3716/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pistoia

90

2004/C 084E/2

E-3717/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Massa

91

2004/C 084E/3

E-3721/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Carrara

91

2004/C 084E/4

E-3722/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Florence

91

2004/C 084E/5

E-3723/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Livorno

92

2004/C 084E/6

E-3724/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Macerata

92

2004/C 084E/7

E-3725/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Ancona

92

2004/C 084E/8

E-3726/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pesaro

93

2004/C 084E/9

E-3727/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pisa

93

2004/C 084E/0

E-3728/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pistoia

93

2004/C 084E/1

E-3729/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Prato

94

2004/C 084E/2

E-3730/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Siena

94

2004/C 084E/3

E-3731/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Terni

94

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3704/03, E-3705/03, E-3706/03, E-3707/03, E-3708/03, E-3709/03, E-3710/03, E-3711/03, E-3712/03, E-3713/03, E-3714/03, E-3715/03, E-3716/03, E-3717/03, E-3721/03, E-3722/03, E-3723/03, E-3724/03, E-3725/03, E-3726/03, E-3727/03, E-3728/03, E-3729/03, E-3730/03 and E-3731/03

2004/C 084E/4

E-3719/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of the risk inherent in zinc

95

2004/C 084E/5

E-3778/03 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the CommissionSubject: Protection of personal rights

96

2004/C 084E/6

E-3779/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Terni under the action programme to promote civil protection

97

2004/C 084E/7

E-3780/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Cararra under the action programme to promote civil protection

97

2004/C 084E/8

E-3781/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Florence under the action programme to promote civil protection

97

2004/C 084E/9

E-3782/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection

98

2004/C 084E/0

E-3783/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil protection

98

2004/C 084E/1

E-3784/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil protection

98

2004/C 084E/2

E-3785/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection

99

2004/C 084E/3

E-3786/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil protection

99

2004/C 084E/4

E-3787/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

99

2004/C 084E/5

E-3788/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pistoia under the action programme to promote civil protection

100

2004/C 084E/6

E-3789/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Prato the action programme to promote civil protection

100

2004/C 084E/7

E-3790/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Siena under the action programme to promote civil protection

100

2004/C 084E/8

E-3791/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Ancona under the action programme to promote civil protection

101

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3779/03, E-3780/03, E-3781/03, E-3782/03, E-3783/03, E-3784/03, E-3785/03, E-3786/03, E-3787/03, E-3788/03, E-3789/03, E-3790/03 and E-3791/03

2004/C 084E/9

E-3817/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Road tolls charged on the Attic Highway in Athens

101

2004/C 084E/0

E-3822/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Serious negative impact on habitats and species of Community interest on the island of Mallorca

102

2004/C 084E/1

E-3828/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships

104

2004/C 084E/2

P-3831/03 by André Brie to the CommissionSubject: Current European-American negotiations on the use of Galileo

105

2004/C 084E/3

E-3842/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Attacks on democracy in Mauritania

106

2004/C 084E/4

P-3865/03 by Marie Isler Béguin to the CommissionSubject: Balearic Islands Sectoral Roads Masterplan

107

2004/C 084E/5

E-3869/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Impact of specific residential building schemes on SIC ES 5223037

108

2004/C 084E/6

E-3887/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Measures to tackle legionnaires’ disease

109

2004/C 084E/7

E-3895/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Conflicts between the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Emissions Trading Directive and the goal of ensuring security of supply: the case of Austria

110

2004/C 084E/8

E-3898/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Otters in UK rivers

111

2004/C 084E/9

E-3904/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: European satellite agency - Galileo programme

112

2004/C 084E/0

E-3906/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Single currency and cost-of-living increases

114

2004/C 084E/1

P-3909/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Framework directive

115

2004/C 084E/2

E-3912/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction in the North Sea

117

2004/C 084E/3

E-3928/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Forests and building cooperatives in Greece

117

2004/C 084E/4

P-3930/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

118

2004/C 084E/5

P-3931/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of areas devastated by the summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal (Supplementary Answer).

119

2004/C 084E/6

E-3934/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: US visa provisions which result in refusal to permit the return of Europeans who have a permanent residence and permanent job in the USA

120

2004/C 084E/7

E-3939/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Failure by drivers of refuse and gritting lorries to comply with the rules on driving and rest periods when carrying out public service tasks

121

2004/C 084E/8

E-3952/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Standards on laying gas pipes

122

2004/C 084E/9

E-3963/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Geroi Sevastopolya - Safety at Sea

122

2004/C 084E/0

E-3969/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor’s office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union

124

2004/C 084E/1

E-3983/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework

125

2004/C 084E/2

E-3985/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Sourcing of timber for the refurbishment of Commission buildings

126

2004/C 084E/3

E-3986/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive waste dumps in Sicily

127

2004/C 084E/4

E-3987/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Galileo

127

2004/C 084E/5

P-3990/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: Posting/delivery of tender documents

128

2004/C 084E/6

P-4002/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Violation of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society

129

2004/C 084E/7

E-4006/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Residence permits and the difficulty of obtaining them

130

2004/C 084E/8

E-4015/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Toxic sites

131

2004/C 084E/9

E-4021/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for research in Portugal

132

2004/C 084E/0

E-4026/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Precious Metals Directive

133

2004/C 084E/1

E-4028/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: The euro and public opinion

133

2004/C 084E/2

E-4029/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Euro-dollar exchange rate

134

2004/C 084E/3

E-4032/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: UK contribution to the EU budget

135

2004/C 084E/4

E-4033/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Censoring of the word condom in the Commission’s official press release to mark World Aids Day at the request of Mr Prodi’s office

135

2004/C 084E/5

P-4034/03 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the CommissionSubject: Protecting people and livestock against wolves and bears

136

2004/C 084E/6

E-4036/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Noni products

137

2004/C 084E/7

E-4037/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Health reform and natural remedies in Germany

139

2004/C 084E/8

E-4057/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European telecommunications networks

139

2004/C 084E/9

E-4061/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Noise from aircraft at Eleftherios Venizelos airport

141

2004/C 084E/0

E-4067/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions

142

2004/C 084E/1

E-4070/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Conventions, Charter and Constitution: the costs

143

2004/C 084E/2

P-0074/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: European Convention

144

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4070/03 and P-0074/04

2004/C 084E/3

E-4075/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Contracts of doctors working for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI)

145

2004/C 084E/4

E-4085/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Practical problems in application of Directive 1999/44/EC

145

2004/C 084E/5

E-0009/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Protection of Netherlands exports of radar detectors by exempting them from a domestic ban

147

2004/C 084E/6

E-0010/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Lower levels of protection against BSE infection in beef from America in the EU compared with Japan, Russia and other countries

148

2004/C 084E/7

E-0017/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Adaptation of Council Directive 92/58/EEC on minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work

150

2004/C 084E/8

P-0019/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Júcar-Vinalopó project

151

2004/C 084E/9

E-0020/04 by Fiorella Ghilardotti, Massimo Carraro and Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Bridge over the Straits of Messina

151

2004/C 084E/0

E-0021/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Urgent adoption of a directive on aircraft safety imposing stringent and uniform checks

153

2004/C 084E/1

P-0038/04 by Juan Izquierdo Collado to the CommissionSubject: Illegal imports of dolphins

153

2004/C 084E/2

E-0042/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Structural Fund decommitments in Scotland

154

2004/C 084E/3

E-0062/04 by Giorgio Calò and Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany

156

2004/C 084E/4

E-0070/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Chrome-plating factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez

157

2004/C 084E/5

P-0075/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Flight safety checks

157

2004/C 084E/6

E-0078/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Schengen Information System and missing persons

158

2004/C 084E/7

E-0082/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Clinical Trials Directive

159

2004/C 084E/8

P-0084/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Ban on shipping of oil in single-hull tankers and the use of flags of convenience

160

2004/C 084E/9

E-0088/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Excessively high premiums charged by Dutch medical insurance companies to policyholders in neighbouring States to offset deficits in the United States

161

2004/C 084E/0

E-0098/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of Sok Yoeun

162

2004/C 084E/1

E-0100/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Language arrangements on the Europa website

163

2004/C 084E/2

E-0122/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Debt and European professional football

164

2004/C 084E/3

E-0128/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Application of age limits to recruitment of workers already having fixed-term contracts over a number of years in the public sector in Greece

165

2004/C 084E/4

E-0138/04 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Use of passenger data for CAPPS II testing

166

2004/C 084E/5

E-0139/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Financial support for undersea optic-fibre cable link for the islands of Flores and Corvo (Azores)

167

2004/C 084E/6

E-0151/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Shortage of intensive care units in Greece (Supplementary Answer)

168

2004/C 084E/7

P-0159/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Trial of women for illegal abortion in Portugal

169

2004/C 084E/8

P-0160/04 by Uma Aaltonen to the CommissionSubject: Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

169

2004/C 084E/9

E-0179/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: National immigration plans

170

2004/C 084E/0

E-0180/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece

171

2004/C 084E/1

P-0192/04 by Philip Bradbourn to the CommissionSubject: Repayments under n+2 rule

172

2004/C 084E/2

E-0195/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Access to medical treatment in Member States

172

2004/C 084E/3

E-0196/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Temporary agency workers directive

173

2004/C 084E/4

E-0197/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Use of State funds to reduce electricity prices for industrial users

174

2004/C 084E/5

E-0200/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: The Bob Programme and road accidents

175

2004/C 084E/6

E-0219/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Malta’s accession and maritime safety

176

2004/C 084E/7

E-0225/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Food safety and developing countries

177

2004/C 084E/8

E-0238/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the directive on the safety of cableways

178

2004/C 084E/9

E-0242/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Parkinson’s disease

179

2004/C 084E/0

P-0244/04 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan - cost and price of water

180

2004/C 084E/1

P-0245/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Impact assessment of OPTA decisions

181

2004/C 084E/2

E-0250/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Retirement age of football referees

182

2004/C 084E/3

E-0251/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of bread

183

2004/C 084E/4

P-0256/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

184

2004/C 084E/5

E-0257/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

185

2004/C 084E/6

E-0258/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Cambodia: Assassination of members of the Opposition

186

2004/C 084E/7

E-0260/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Blue tongue disease - protection of stock farmers in Lazio

186

2004/C 084E/8

E-0261/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Reported Spanish ban on motorcycles towing trailers

188

2004/C 084E/9

E-0262/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Sewage treatment plants

189

2004/C 084E/0

P-0263/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Safety at Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station

189

2004/C 084E/1

E-0269/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Consumer credit

190

2004/C 084E/2

E-0278/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme

191

2004/C 084E/3

P-0281/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies

192

2004/C 084E/4

E-0287/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Mislabelling of seal oil in the EU

193

2004/C 084E/5

P-0294/04 by Herman Vermeer to the CommissionSubject: Disclosure of the rate structure for the Central European Pipeline System

194

2004/C 084E/6

E-0295/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Age discrimination in the provision of goods and services

194

2004/C 084E/7

E-0299/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Compact disc pricing in the EU

195

2004/C 084E/8

P-0303/04 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Booking tickets for travel in another country

196

2004/C 084E/9

P-0304/04 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the CommissionSubject: Prison guards

196

2004/C 084E/0

E-0315/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Language programme for minority languages

197

2004/C 084E/1

E-0316/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: European voluntary and solidarity service

198

2004/C 084E/2

E-0317/04 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Pork by-products

199

2004/C 084E/3

P-0338/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Food safety

199

2004/C 084E/4

P-0340/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the European Community

200

2004/C 084E/5

P-0342/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the opening up of the Belgian railways market

201

2004/C 084E/6

P-0359/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Impact of lack of health care standards on free movement of labour and citizens

202

2004/C 084E/7

E-0366/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Shoppers’ rights in Ireland under EU law

203

2004/C 084E/8

E-0370/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors

204

2004/C 084E/9

P-0376/04 by Luciana Sbarbati to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

204

2004/C 084E/0

P-0388/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Terni steelworks: closure of the Thyssen-Krupp plant

205

2004/C 084E/1

P-0445/04 by Mario Mastella to the CommissionSubject: Crisis at the AST plant in Terni

206

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0376/04, P-0388/04 and P-0445/04

2004/C 084E/2

E-0381/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Operation of reception classes — second operational programme: education and initial training

208

2004/C 084E/3

E-0383/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Postage rates

209

2004/C 084E/4

E-0393/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Animal By-Products Regulation

210

2004/C 084E/5

P-0514/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up question to Written Question E-2133/02 on discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age

211

2004/C 084E/6

E-0580/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption

212

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

2004/C 084E/7

E-0225/03 by Guido Podestà to the CommissionSubject: AIDS in eastern Europe

213

2004/C 084E/8

P-2374/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission (Supplementary Answer)

214

2004/C 084E/9

E-2454/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: alteration of the Commission’s position on recognising and tackling fraud and consequences for independent investigation by OLAF

214

2004/C 084E/0

E-2573/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

215

2004/C 084E/1

E-2688/03 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Reduction in VAT rates for labour-intensive sectors

217

2004/C 084E/2

E-2837/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a new airline from Olympic Airways (Supplementary Answer)

218

2004/C 084E/3

E-3075/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Freedom and pluralism in information

219

2004/C 084E/4

E-3114/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State

220

2004/C 084E/5

E-3122/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

221

2004/C 084E/6

E-3123/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CouncilSubject: Deportation of Chechens

222

2004/C 084E/7

E-3139/03 by Peter Liese to the CouncilSubject: EU preparedness in the event of biological attack

223

2004/C 084E/8

E-3148/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for institutions working with women and girls who are victims of prostitution

223

2004/C 084E/9

E-3206/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CouncilSubject: Search made of the offices of the newspaper Il Giornale: violation of press freedom in Italy

224

2004/C 084E/0

E-3242/03 by Jan Wiersma to the CouncilSubject: The Buy American Act in the American defence budget

225

2004/C 084E/1

P-3246/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CouncilSubject: Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism

226

2004/C 084E/2

E-3248/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CouncilSubject: Possibility of tracking cellphone users

227

2004/C 084E/3

E-3251/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CouncilSubject: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

228

2004/C 084E/4

E-3267/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CouncilSubject: Qualified majority voting

228

2004/C 084E/5

P-3282/03 by Anne André-Léonard to the CouncilSubject: Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters’ certificates for recreational craft

233

2004/C 084E/6

P-3313/03 by Hans-Peter Martin to the CouncilSubject: Negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty

233

2004/C 084E/7

E-3349/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: Eurobarometer opinion poll

234

2004/C 084E/8

E-3354/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CouncilSubject: Minority language groups in Greece and official statistics

235

2004/C 084E/9

E-3358/03 by Chris Davies to the CouncilSubject: Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries

236

2004/C 084E/0

P-3414/03 by Marianne Eriksson to the CouncilSubject: Estonia and directives on equal opportunities

237

2004/C 084E/1

P-3415/03 by Francesco Rutelli to the CouncilSubject: Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003

238

2004/C 084E/2

P-3473/03 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CouncilSubject: Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003

238

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3415/03 and P-3473/03

2004/C 084E/3

E-3440/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: Human rights in China

239

2004/C 084E/4

E-3441/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CouncilSubject: EU action against the Guantánamo Bay prison

240

2004/C 084E/5

E-3451/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CouncilSubject: Eurobarometer findings regarding the Euro and inflation

241

2004/C 084E/6

E-3468/03 by Bart Staes, Phillip Whitehead, Catherine Stihler and Margrietus van den Berg to the CouncilSubject: Post-polio syndrome

242

2004/C 084E/7

E-3495/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CouncilSubject: Colombia - ELN hostages

242

2004/C 084E/8

E-3499/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CouncilSubject: Romano Prodi - Manifesto

243

2004/C 084E/9

E-3525/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Size of apples

244

2004/C 084E/0

P-3526/03 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CouncilSubject: The difference between unanimity and consensus

245

2004/C 084E/1

E-3531/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CouncilSubject: Statements by the President of the Transport Council after the informal Transport Council in Verona

246

2004/C 084E/2

E-3533/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CouncilSubject: European Space Policy - budget

246

2004/C 084E/3

E-3572/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Lloyds of London

247

2004/C 084E/4

E-3575/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: EU Identity document for the disabled

248

2004/C 084E/5

E-3621/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Presence of chlophen in food produced in various regions of Greece (Supplementary Answer)

249

2004/C 084E/6

E-3661/03 by Konrad Schwaiger and Karl von Wogau to the CommissionSubject: Imports of preserved mushrooms from China

250

2004/C 084E/7

E-3812/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Tempus programme in Romania

250

2004/C 084E/8

E-3829/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The milk quota situation after enlargement: Galicia’s production allowance

251

2004/C 084E/9

E-3854/03 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s plans for reforming State aid rules

252

2004/C 084E/0

E-3855/03 by Michl Ebner and Paolo Pastorelli to the CommissionSubject: Airport security

253

2004/C 084E/1

E-3856/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Contracts under the Eighth EDF

254

2004/C 084E/2

E-3858/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Invalidity pensions in the European Union

255

2004/C 084E/3

E-3866/03 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Bird-trapping in Cyprus

256

2004/C 084E/4

E-3876/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Exceeding of the basic cultivation areas for 2003 and application of penalties

256

2004/C 084E/5

E-3883/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: Community funding for telecommunications (Supplementary Answer)

257

2004/C 084E/6

E-3885/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: possible checks on funding granted by the EU (Supplementary Answer)

258

2004/C 084E/7

E-3897/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Unsustainable fishery by-catches

260

2004/C 084E/8

E-3900/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Trieste-Divaca rail link

261

2004/C 084E/9

E-3968/03 by Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European transport network

261

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3900/03 and E-3968/03

2004/C 084E/0

E-3905/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat enquiry: OLAF task force disbanded

262

2004/C 084E/1

E-3907/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Commission proposal to reduce fishery catches in 2004, in Galician waters and those of the Iberian peninsula in general

263

2004/C 084E/2

E-3914/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Expansion of Palma de Mallorca Airport

265

2004/C 084E/3

E-3921/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Illegal practices in use of water from the Segura Basin (Murcia, Spain)

266

2004/C 084E/4

E-3923/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting

266

2004/C 084E/5

E-3938/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Use of surveying firms, contracted by the public authorities, to measure plot areas in connection with participation in EU set-aside schemes

268

2004/C 084E/6

E-3940/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Distortions in the sugar trade

269

2004/C 084E/7

E-3941/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam

270

2004/C 084E/8

E-3944/03 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Fish-stock recovery plans

271

2004/C 084E/9

E-3945/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Use of EU funds for terrorist organisations and checks on funding for the PNA

271

2004/C 084E/0

E-3947/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for pioneering solar energy plants

273

2004/C 084E/1

E-3961/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Jules Muis - functioning of the Commission

274

2004/C 084E/2

E-3962/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portugal - toll charges and people carriers

277

2004/C 084E/3

E-3979/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Planning amnesty in Ibiza

278

2004/C 084E/4

E-3988/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes and Eurostat

279

2004/C 084E/5

E-3994/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Culture and languages programme

280

2004/C 084E/6

E-3995/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Projects relating to the information society

280

2004/C 084E/7

E-3996/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: New work methods and development of e-commerce

281

2004/C 084E/8

E-4003/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube

281

2004/C 084E/9

E-4007/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Earthquake risk prevention

282

2004/C 084E/0

E-4017/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Publicisation of the EU among the blind in the Community

284

2004/C 084E/1

E-4018/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Standardised use of the European flag on aircraft of EU airlines

285

2004/C 084E/2

E-4020/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Congo river basin

286

2004/C 084E/3

P-4035/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Implementation in Portugal of the regulation on automobile distribution

287

2004/C 084E/4

E-4045/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Contamination of groundwater in Catalonia

288

2004/C 084E/5

E-4046/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Software and filtering systems

289

2004/C 084E/6

E-4047/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Safe use of the Internet

290

2004/C 084E/7

P-4048/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: EDF budgetisation

291

2004/C 084E/8

E-4054/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: National waters within the EU’s EEZ

292

2004/C 084E/9

E-4065/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

292

2004/C 084E/0

E-4078/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Galileo

293

2004/C 084E/1

E-0006/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily

294

2004/C 084E/2

E-0016/04 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products

295

2004/C 084E/3

E-0031/04 by Astrid Lulling to the CommissionSubject: Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies

296

2004/C 084E/4

E-0035/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Unavailability for commercial reasons of information on insufficient airline safety standards

297

2004/C 084E/5

E-0039/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Amount of EU legislative acts

298

2004/C 084E/6

E-0043/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trade impact of the euro

298

2004/C 084E/7

E-0045/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Failure to carry out prior checks and a simultaneous environmental impact assessment on the entire building project coordinated by Impreglio SpA on the coastline of Sa Sea — Tentizzos in the municipality of Bosa (NU), Sardinia, Italy

299

2004/C 084E/8

E-0046/04 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: Advertisements for jobs in European organisations requiring English mother tongue

301

2004/C 084E/9

E-0086/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Language requirements in EU job advertisements

301

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04

2004/C 084E/0

E-0051/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the letter to the Commission from six Member States following the failure of the Brussels IGC

302

2004/C 084E/1

E-0063/04 by Alexander de Roo and Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Incineration of railway sleepers

303

2004/C 084E/2

P-0066/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Parmalat bankruptcy

304

2004/C 084E/3

P-0093/04 by Martin Kastler to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in humans and prostitution in the German-Czech border area

305

2004/C 084E/4

E-0112/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Dolphins

306

2004/C 084E/5

E-0121/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Integrated waste management in the municipality of Casale sul Sile (Treviso)

307

2004/C 084E/6

E-0123/04 by Dorette Corbey and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Containers of arsenic pentoxide at sea

308

2004/C 084E/7

E-0131/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tragedy involving Albanian migrants

309

2004/C 084E/8

E-0132/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Improved aviation safety through more effective channelling of information

311

2004/C 084E/9

P-0133/04 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Fishery control agency in Vigo

312

2004/C 084E/0

P-0134/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Collapse of Parmalat and insufficient checks by Bankitalia

312

2004/C 084E/1

P-0135/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Rome central dairy: safeguarding jobs and protecting farmers

313

2004/C 084E/2

E-0136/04 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: GM food and crop imports

314

2004/C 084E/3

E-0140/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Media access in the Azores and Madeira outlying regions

315

2004/C 084E/4

E-0141/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Child labour

316

2004/C 084E/5

E-0145/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: International Rice Year

317

2004/C 084E/6

P-0149/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Revenue from denationalisation used to cover current expenditure

319

2004/C 084E/7

E-0153/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Use of the term Chechen network without any proven involvement of Chechens

319

2004/C 084E/8

E-0155/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Disadvantaging certain categories of passengers through further restrictions on the sale of rail tickets from the Netherlands to other European destinations

320

2004/C 084E/9

P-0156/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

321

2004/C 084E/0

E-0161/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

322

2004/C 084E/1

E-0162/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

322

2004/C 084E/2

E-0163/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

322

2004/C 084E/3

E-0164/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

323

2004/C 084E/4

E-0165/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

323

2004/C 084E/5

E-0166/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

323

2004/C 084E/6

E-0167/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

324

2004/C 084E/7

E-0168/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

324

2004/C 084E/8

E-0169/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

324

2004/C 084E/9

E-0170/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

325

2004/C 084E/0

E-0171/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

325

2004/C 084E/1

E-0172/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

325

2004/C 084E/2

E-0173/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

325

2004/C 084E/3

E-0174/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

326

2004/C 084E/4

E-0175/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

326

2004/C 084E/5

E-0176/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

326

2004/C 084E/6

E-0177/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s accounting systems

326

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0156/04, E-0161/04, E-0162/04, E-0163/04, E-0164/04, E-0165/04, E-0166/04, E-0167/04, E-0168/04, E-0169/04, E-0170/04, E-0171/04, E-0172/04, E-0173/04, E-0174/04, E-0175/04, E-0176/04 and E-0177/04

2004/C 084E/7

E-0184/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Eircom telephone line rental charges in Ireland

329

2004/C 084E/8

E-0191/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Financial collapse of Parmalat: protecting savers and setting up a supervisory body

330

2004/C 084E/9

E-0201/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic discrimination in job descriptions

332

2004/C 084E/0

E-0210/04 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in job advertisements

332

2004/C 084E/1

E-0236/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Job advertisements for native speakers

332

2004/C 084E/2

E-0241/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination - native speakers

333

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04 and E-0241/04

2004/C 084E/3

E-0203/04 by Alexander de Roo and Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Fuel Quality Law - Royal Decree 1700/2003

334

2004/C 084E/4

E-0211/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Allegations of manoeuvring to seize property owned by building cooperatives in Greece

335

2004/C 084E/5

E-0227/04 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen to the CommissionSubject: Alcohol ignition interlock devices (alcolocks)

335

2004/C 084E/6

E-0228/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Timely development and production of drugs to combat the merging of avian influenza virus H5N1 and influenza A occurring in humans

336

2004/C 084E/7

E-0235/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Violation of human rights of Cacarica communities in Colombia

338

2004/C 084E/8

E-0237/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Fees at the European Schools

339

2004/C 084E/9

E-0239/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians and Buddhists in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic

340

2004/C 084E/0

E-0240/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Huge discount from banks to the Democratici di Sinistra party in violation of the principle of free competition

341

2004/C 084E/1

E-0243/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Relocation and unemployment (Supplementary Answer)

342

2004/C 084E/2

E-0264/04 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Community funding for the Greek National Cadastre

344

2004/C 084E/3

E-0265/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece

345

2004/C 084E/4

E-0274/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Arsenic acid

346

2004/C 084E/5

E-0277/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: EU participation in a project to build a multi-purpose hall in Brussels

348

2004/C 084E/6

E-0279/04 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Embryo and stem-cell research

349

2004/C 084E/7

P-0280/04 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: European Commission representation in Delhi

350

2004/C 084E/8

P-0282/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Identification of the outermost regions on official Community maps

351

2004/C 084E/9

P-0283/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Public procurement policy in timer

352

2004/C 084E/0

E-0285/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Landfill on Malta

353

2004/C 084E/1

E-0290/04 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Scope of Directive 97/11/EC

354

2004/C 084E/2

E-0291/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Road accidents in European Union countries

354

2004/C 084E/3

P-0293/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Threat to the Güe springs from the construction of the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain)

355

2004/C 084E/4

E-0298/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Relations between the EU and Libya and human rights in Libya

356

2004/C 084E/5

E-0307/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Genetically modified crops

357

2004/C 084E/6

E-0308/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: The French language at the Commission

358

2004/C 084E/7

E-0311/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of the activities of the rail freight company Ikea Rail within two years of its foundation and the status of the EU subsidy of EUR 500000 awarded to this experiment

359

2004/C 084E/8

P-0324/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: New Belgian levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France

360

2004/C 084E/9

E-0325/04 by Willi Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2002/25/EC

361

2004/C 084E/0

E-0329/04 by Jillian Evans and Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Endometriosis

362

2004/C 084E/1

E-0332/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Mislabelling of arsenic acid as pentoxide by the Netherlands as a result of mistakes in unambiguous new nomenclature for hazardous chemicals

363

2004/C 084E/2

P-0336/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Embryo research financed from the EU budget

364

2004/C 084E/3

P-0339/04 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines

365

2004/C 084E/4

E-0344/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Conseillers hors classe

366

2004/C 084E/5

E-0345/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European Transport Networks

367

2004/C 084E/6

E-0346/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Differential pricing

368

2004/C 084E/7

E-0349/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Serious irregularities involving the EU as regards the establishment of the private University of Formello (Rome)

369

2004/C 084E/8

E-0353/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of funding for a virtual health information project

370

2004/C 084E/9

E-0354/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the creation of a multi-purpose auditorium

371

2004/C 084E/0

E-0355/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Funding for young artists

372

2004/C 084E/1

E-0356/04 by Pasqualina Napoletano, Giorgio Ruffolo, Guido Sacconi and Walter Veltroni to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

372

2004/C 084E/2

E-0390/04 by Francesco Rutelli to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the electrical steel department of AST in Terni

373

2004/C 084E/3

E-0395/04 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the closure of the steelworks in Terni

373

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0356/04, E-0390/04 and E-0395/04

2004/C 084E/4

P-0360/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Failure to include directory services among universal service obligations

374

2004/C 084E/5

E-0361/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of Irish drinking water

375

2004/C 084E/6

E-0363/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Complaint P2000/4974

376

2004/C 084E/7

E-0364/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Packaging Waste Directive and Ireland

377

2004/C 084E/8

E-0365/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Separation of Accounts Directive

377

2004/C 084E/9

E-0367/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Animal experiments in Ireland

378

2004/C 084E/0

E-0368/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Irish Government charges and the Seveso II Directive

379

2004/C 084E/1

E-0369/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Public consultation during the preparation of emergency plans under the Seveso II Directive

379

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0368/04 and E-0369/04

2004/C 084E/2

E-0372/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Interrogation of the editor Alexander Podrabinek

380

2004/C 084E/3

P-0375/04 by Martin Kastler to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the consumption of alcopops by young people

381

2004/C 084E/4

E-0379/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Dismissal of pregnant workers

382

2004/C 084E/5

E-0380/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Contract-holders at the Fire Service

383

2004/C 084E/6

P-0385/04 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Commercial activities of Ordnance Survey

383

2004/C 084E/7

P-0386/04 by Jean Saint-Josse to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines

385

2004/C 084E/8

P-0387/04 by Yves Butel to the CommissionSubject: Wind turbines

386

2004/C 084E/9

E-0391/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Hair dye and cancer risks

386

2004/C 084E/0

P-0392/04 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: The EU’s continuing capacity to receive large quotas of immigrants from third-world countries

388

2004/C 084E/1

E-0405/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Outbreak of avian influenza

389

2004/C 084E/2

E-0415/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Review of decision on Norrmejerier

390

2004/C 084E/3

P-0417/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Sackings from the Finex Group factory (Supplementary Answer)

390

2004/C 084E/4

E-0421/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

391

2004/C 084E/5

E-0422/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: High-speed Lubian to Orense rail link giving central access to Galicia

393

2004/C 084E/6

E-0428/04 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: The future of publicly-owned regional airports in the light of the recent decision on Charleroi Airport, in Belgium, and Ryanair

393

2004/C 084E/7

E-0431/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: European Commission plan for a vertical-takeoff convertiplane

394

2004/C 084E/8

E-0432/04 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Passive smoking

395

2004/C 084E/9

P-0433/04 by Seán Ó Neachtain to the CommissionSubject: Status of Gaeilige for recruitment to the EU Institutions

397

2004/C 084E/0

E-0434/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 0

398

2004/C 084E/1

E-0435/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 1

398

2004/C 084E/2

E-0436/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 2

398

2004/C 084E/3

E-0437/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EURO 5

399

2004/C 084E/4

E-0438/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: EURO 6

399

2004/C 084E/5

E-0439/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Nitrogen oxide emission limits

400

2004/C 084E/6

E-0440/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: Particulate emission limits

400

2004/C 084E/7

E-0441/04 by Michl Ebnerto the CommissionSubject: Particulate filters

400

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0434/04, E-0435/04, E-0436/04, E-0437/04, E-0438/04, E-0439/04, E-0440/04 and E-0441/04

2004/C 084E/8

E-0453/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Exploitation of Portuguese workers in France

402

2004/C 084E/9

P-0455/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Illegal fishing - Azores and Madeira

403

2004/C 084E/0

E-0456/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Increase in consumer complaints in Greece

404

2004/C 084E/1

E-0458/04 by Brian Simpson and Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Avian flu and the ban on poultry from Thailand

405

2004/C 084E/2

E-0459/04 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Closure of Thyssen Krupp plants in Terni

406

2004/C 084E/3

E-0460/04 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Belgium — European leader in the combating of salmonella enteritidis — pasteurisation of eggs

407

2004/C 084E/4

E-0464/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Brax - sackings and relocation

408

2004/C 084E/5

E-0467/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Mission expenses

409

2004/C 084E/6

E-0471/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Misuse of the model European disabled person’s parking card

409

2004/C 084E/7

E-0475/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

410

2004/C 084E/8

E-0538/04 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy — English mother tongue or native speaker

411

2004/C 084E/9

E-0710/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: EU notices of vacancy for English mother-tongue candidates

411

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0475/04, E-0538/04 and E-0710/04

2004/C 084E/0

P-0476/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission cars

412

2004/C 084E/1

E-0478/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission Cars

412

2004/C 084E/2

E-0480/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission open competitions

413

2004/C 084E/3

P-0490/04 by Harlem Désir to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment of the Pakistani journalist Khawar Mehdi Rizvi who was arrested in Karachi on 14 December 2003 together with the French journalists Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau who wrote for L’Express magazine

414

2004/C 084E/4

P-0494/04 by Carlos Carnero González to the CommissionSubject: Exemption from the environmental impact assessment by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain, for work on the M30 motorway

415

2004/C 084E/5

E-0496/04 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries

416

2004/C 084E/6

E-0497/04 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain

416

2004/C 084E/7

E-0503/04 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC

417

2004/C 084E/8

E-0504/04 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Incineration of meat-and-bone meal

418

2004/C 084E/9

E-0505/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Use of meat-and-bone meal in animal feed

419

2004/C 084E/0

E-0507/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Outermost regions

420

2004/C 084E/1

P-0515/04 by Luís Queiró to the CommissionSubject: Scientific and technical opinions for management of Community fisheries

421

2004/C 084E/2

P-0524/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: The Constitution

421

2004/C 084E/3

E-0530/04 by Bernd Lange, Karin Scheele and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Euronorm standards and particulates emitted from diesel vehicles

422

2004/C 084E/4

P-0531/04 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the CommissionSubject: Construction of a salt-water spa and discharge of thermal salt water from the spa into the River Spree without an environmental impact assessment

424

2004/C 084E/5

P-0532/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear submarines docked at Santo Stefano Island, Sardinia

425

2004/C 084E/6

E-0535/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of disability status across the European Union

426

2004/C 084E/7

E-0537/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: The role of Esperanto in maintaining language equality efficiently

427

2004/C 084E/8

E-0561/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and Nitrates Directive

428

2004/C 084E/9

E-0563/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Ireland

428

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0561/04 and E-0563/04

2004/C 084E/0

E-0565/04 by Martin Callanan to the CommissionSubject: Clarification on the scope of the Recreational Craft Directive

429

2004/C 084E/1

P-0567/04 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the CommissionSubject: Limitation of public exposure to electromagnetic fields

430

2004/C 084E/2

E-0569/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Leonardo da Vinci programme

431

2004/C 084E/3

E-0586/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Horse passports

432

2004/C 084E/4

E-0597/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement

433

2004/C 084E/5

E-0601/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Firearms licensing

434

2004/C 084E/6

E-0603/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Marking down foodstuffs for quick sale

435

2004/C 084E/7

E-0604/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Sale of foodstuffs that are past their sell-by dates

435

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0603/04 and E-0604/04

2004/C 084E/8

E-0605/04 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector

436

2004/C 084E/9

E-0625/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: If the French State prevents Jean-Marie Le Pen from standing in the regional elections it would represent a serious breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty

437

2004/C 084E/0

P-0633/04 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the CommissionSubject: Integration of the Commission in Brussels

438

2004/C 084E/1

P-0635/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

439

2004/C 084E/2

P-0641/04 by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf to the CommissionSubject: Results of testing for the presence of GMOs in seeds since 2000

440

2004/C 084E/3

P-0644/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Further information on question concerning portability of supplementary pension rights

441

2004/C 084E/4

P-0645/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Expert advice in the JHA sector

441

2004/C 084E/5

P-0653/04 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Question E-0760/03 — Operating conditions for incineration plants under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002

442

2004/C 084E/6

E-0656/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Mobile neutering units

443

2004/C 084E/7

P-0704/04 by Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Transport of poultry

443

2004/C 084E/8

P-0709/04 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel crisis (Rieti)

444

2004/C 084E/9

E-0717/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Johne’s disease

445

2004/C 084E/0

E-0728/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding

446

2004/C 084E/1

P-0734/04 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the CommissionSubject: Skiing safety and standardisation

446

2004/C 084E/2

P-0769/04 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Safety of public buildings in areas of high seismic risk

447

2004/C 084E/3

E-0787/04 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

448

2004/C 084E/4

P-0799/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC

449

2004/C 084E/5

P-0823/04 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of degrees and denial of employment

450

2004/C 084E/6

P-0824/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination of pet farm animals

451

2004/C 084E/7

P-0849/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Late payment in commercial operations

452

2004/C 084E/8

E-0865/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: European subsidies paid to the Flemish community

453

2004/C 084E/9

E-1064/04 by André Brie to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

454

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3)

2004/C 084E/0

E-3897/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: The costs of enlargement and the national contributions of the existing Member States

455

2004/C 084E/1

E-0160/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities

456

2004/C 084E/2

E-0162/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Duties on canned Asiatic tuna

457

2004/C 084E/3

E-0496/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Palestine: hatred spreads to football

458

2004/C 084E/4

E-0501/03 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the CommissionSubject: European Parliament resolution on the memorandum presented by the Commission to the Council on income taxation and equal treatment for men and women (A2-0055/85)

459

2004/C 084E/5

P-0661/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

460

2004/C 084E/6

E-0806/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Violations of Community law in EU Member States

461

2004/C 084E/7

E-0857/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Purchase of Corus by Outokumpu

462

2004/C 084E/8

E-0907/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Azerbaijan

462

2004/C 084E/9

E-0911/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities

464

2004/C 084E/0

E-0947/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Provisions enacted by the Italian Government with regard to electromagnetic pollution

465

2004/C 084E/1

E-1271/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva in Cuba

467

2004/C 084E/2

E-1306/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Further development of European legislation on car emissions

467

2004/C 084E/3

E-1367/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: EU agriculture subsidies and elimination of local producers

468

2004/C 084E/4

P-1511/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Financial corrections

470

2004/C 084E/5

E-1570/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Criticism of the active involvement of the Flemish government in environmental rehabilitation, allegedly in breach of the promotion of free competition

471

2004/C 084E/6

E-1571/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Solutions for environmental problems in Flanders without increasing dependence on private firms

472

2004/C 084E/7

E-1671/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up question to question E-3529/02 on statutory regulation of holiday pay

473

2004/C 084E/8

P-1696/03 by Danielle Darras to the CommissionSubject: European funds and subcontracting

474

2004/C 084E/9

E-1697/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Consumer fraud involving cat and dog skins

475

2004/C 084E/0

E-1700/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Financial corrections

475

2004/C 084E/1

E-1731/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty

476

2004/C 084E/2

E-1736/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Commission presence at the Fifth World Avocado Congress

477

2004/C 084E/3

E-1830/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Letters to the Greek authorities regarding the proper use of Community funds and compliance with Community (regional policy) legislation

478

2004/C 084E/4

E-1857/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Protecting slots for regional air routes

478

2004/C 084E/5

P-1886/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Iraqi cultural heritage

479

2004/C 084E/6

E-1936/03 by Anne Jensen to the CommissionSubject: Port safety

479

2004/C 084E/7

P-2007/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Vietnam: continuing imprisonment of the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do

480

2004/C 084E/8

P-2154/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects (Supplementary Answer)

481

2004/C 084E/9

P-2158/03 by Danielle Darras to the CommissionSubject: Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue

482

2004/C 084E/0

E-2257/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Georgia

483

2004/C 084E/1

E-2280/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Train warning signals

484

2004/C 084E/2

E-2297/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive

485

2004/C 084E/3

E-2332/03 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC

486

2004/C 084E/4

P-2341/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Letters to the Greek authorities on the proper use of Community Regional Policy funds

487

2004/C 084E/5

P-2350/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Darwin Mounds

487

2004/C 084E/6

E-2413/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Funding for children’s choral exchanges

488

2004/C 084E/7

E-2421/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Bullfrogs

489

2004/C 084E/8

E-2431/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: HIV/AIDS situation in Central Asian countries

489

2004/C 084E/9

E-2445/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Illegal importations of bushmeat

492

2004/C 084E/0

E-2496/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: World current account discrepancy

493

2004/C 084E/1

E-2503/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Car hire companies

493

2004/C 084E/2

E-2526/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: EU egg producers

494

2004/C 084E/3

E-2572/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Attacks on freedom of religion in Georgia affecting members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic and Orthodox confessions and Jehovah’s Witnesses

495

2004/C 084E/4

E-2681/03 by Robert Goebbels to the CommissionSubject: Approval of Luxembourg secondary school leaving certificates in Belgium

496

2004/C 084E/5

P-2817/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Revamped Olympic Airlines

497

2004/C 084E/6

E-2861/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: GM crops

498

2004/C 084E/7

E-3042/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Installation of telecommunications masts

499

2004/C 084E/8

P-3109/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: Hydrogenated fats

501

2004/C 084E/9

E-3170/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Problems regarding the Attica suburban railway project

501

2004/C 084E/0

E-3171/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Progress towards completion of the Athens tramway

502

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3170/03 and E-3171/03

2004/C 084E/1

E-3297/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - food contingency plan

503

2004/C 084E/2

E-3330/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring them into Member States with the strictest controls

504

2004/C 084E/3

E-3363/03 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Socio-economic impact of extractive industry in northern Europe

506

2004/C 084E/4

E-3409/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Appointment of privatisation advisers for the Post Office Savings Bank

507

2004/C 084E/5

E-3512/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Probable impact of the strike of employees at the National Statistical Service of Greece on the publication of European indicators

508

2004/C 084E/6

E-3586/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for an Italian company linked to Romano Prodi

508

2004/C 084E/7

E-3852/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Appointments and transparency in the Commission

509

2004/C 084E/8

E-3884/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: suspected infringement of rules on funding granted by the EU (Supplementary Answer)

510

2004/C 084E/9

P-3930/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (Supplementary Answer)

511

2004/C 084E/0

E-3955/03 by Heide Rühle to the CommissionSubject: Interpretation of environmental information directives

512

2004/C 084E/1

E-3964/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Endocrine disruptors in drinking water — reaction to the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-2565/03

513

2004/C 084E/2

E-3976/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Complexity of simplifying the Community acquis

515

2004/C 084E/3

P-3999/03 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca to the CommissionSubject: Internal control standard 5 — Sensitive functions: Modalities relating to the implementation of compulsory mobility

516

2004/C 084E/4

E-4043/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas for 2004

517

2004/C 084E/5

E-4069/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: European Maritime Safety Agency

519

2004/C 084E/6

E-4071/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: The Growth and Stability Pact again

520

2004/C 084E/7

E-4076/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Widespread desiccation of pine trees in Greece

521

2004/C 084E/8

E-4079/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bird trapping on Cyprus

522

2004/C 084E/9

P-0001/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State (Supplementary Answer)

522

2004/C 084E/0

E-0011/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Tunis summit and immigration policy

525

2004/C 084E/1

E-0015/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Apple orchards

526

2004/C 084E/2

E-0022/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Support for the Po Valley dairy farmers’ campaign

527

2004/C 084E/3

E-0033/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition by the introduction of regional premiums

527

2004/C 084E/4

E-0048/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Location of the European fisheries monitoring agency in Galicia

529

2004/C 084E/5

E-0056/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Mr Prodi’s statement on the need for each Member State or group of Member States to take the initiative and move forward on the basis of reinforced cooperation if the draft constitution is not adopted in the near future

529

2004/C 084E/6

E-0059/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare and subsidies following the reform of the CAP

530

2004/C 084E/7

E-0079/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Flight Times and Duty Limitations Proposal — COM(2002)0030

531

2004/C 084E/8

P-0094/04 byAdriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in tobacco

531

2004/C 084E/9

E-0099/04 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Lucio Manisco, Mario Borghezio, Roberto Bigliardo, Luisa Morgantini, Carlo Fatuzzo, Giovanni Fava, Marco Pannella, Generoso Andria, Vitaliano Gemelli, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Sebastiano Musumeci, Pasqualina Napoletano, Amalia Sartori, Giovanni Pittella, Mariotto Segni, Luigi Cocilovo, Walter Veltroni, Giorgio Ruffolo, Raffaele Costa, Luigi Cesaro, Paolo Pastorelli, Adriana Poli Bortone, Fiorella Ghilardotti, Giovanni Procacci, Claudio Martelli, Mauro Nobilia, Antonio Mussa, Renato Brunetta and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Burma

532

2004/C 084E/0

E-0102/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Paying for water

533

2004/C 084E/1

E-0103/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Water for human consumption

534

2004/C 084E/2

E-0105/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Curious approach adopted by the Greek government to the stock exchange

535

2004/C 084E/3

P-0111/04 by Minerva Malliori to the CommissionSubject: Dioxins in farm-raised salmon

536

2004/C 084E/4

E-0119/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Repression of Lao-Hmong communities in the Saysomboune region (Laos)

537

2004/C 084E/5

P-0127/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community budget and the financial perspective

538

2004/C 084E/6

E-0129/04 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: Invasive alien species

539

2004/C 084E/7

E-0130/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of drinking water

540

2004/C 084E/8

E-0152/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Collection of biometric data at Eleftherios Venizelos airport, their processing by an external partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data

541

2004/C 084E/9

E-0186/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal

542

2004/C 084E/0

E-0189/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tunisian regime’s repressive measures targeting human rights activists

543

2004/C 084E/1

E-0190/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Creating transparency regarding ownership of the company Italtrend (RE), beneficiary of consulting contracts from the European Commission worth millions of euro

544

2004/C 084E/2

E-0194/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Flight and duty time limitations for airline pilots

546

2004/C 084E/3

P-0198/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a Community body for the study of unexplained atmospheric phenomena

546

2004/C 084E/4

P-0199/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Ethnic census

547

2004/C 084E/5

E-0204/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Financial reporting

548

2004/C 084E/6

E-0205/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Protecting SMEs against multinationals: the case of Ford dealers in Italy

549

2004/C 084E/7

E-0209/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Selection procedures of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

550

2004/C 084E/8

E-0212/04 by Simon Murphy to the CommissionSubject: Driftnets

550

2004/C 084E/9

E-0220/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Threats to Po Valley producers as a result of the euro’s excessive rise against the dollar

552

2004/C 084E/0

P-0222/04 by María Ayuso González to the CommissionSubject: Cotton

552

2004/C 084E/1

P-0230/04 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003 (Supplementary Answer)

553

2004/C 084E/2

E-0232/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Euro

554

2004/C 084E/3

E-0246/04 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Start of work on the Ebro Transfer

555

2004/C 084E/4

E-0247/04 by Elisabeth Jeggle and Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Revision of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs

556

2004/C 084E/5

E-0252/04 by Raquel Cardoso to the CommissionSubject: Financing of the Natura 2000 network

557

2004/C 084E/6

E-0255/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Highways plan for Majorca

557

2004/C 084E/7

E-0259/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of tolls on state highway 47, Valsugana

559

2004/C 084E/8

E-0271/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeit euro coins and banknotes

560

2004/C 084E/9

E-0273/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Automar srl — concessionaire for Mercedes Benz motor vehicles

561

2004/C 084E/0

E-0275/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

563

2004/C 084E/1

E-0276/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution

564

2004/C 084E/2

E-0286/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: EU monkey experiments

565

2004/C 084E/3

E-0289/04 by Marco Cappato, Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Emma Bonino, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Cultural genocide in China

565

2004/C 084E/4

E-0292/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Ship-building in Italy

567

2004/C 084E/5

E-0296/04 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Interim procedure on state aids paid in accession countries

567

2004/C 084E/6

E-0297/04 by Theodorus Bouwman to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU law of Spanish mining company Uminsa and possible frauds

569

2004/C 084E/7

E-0301/04 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Swedish nuclear power and the internal market

570

2004/C 084E/8

P-0305/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Request for PDO for Sant Andrea Piemonte rice

571

2004/C 084E/9

P-0323/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Stage reached in examining the territorial monopoly of German chimney-sweeps

572

2004/C 084E/0

E-0327/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: County Clare and Objective I of the Structural Fund

573

2004/C 084E/1

E-0348/04 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Offensive material on websites in Member States

574

2004/C 084E/2

E-0357/04 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen to the CommissionSubject: Sparsely populated areas in future regional policy

575

2004/C 084E/3

E-0371/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s failure to fix penalties for ozone-depleting substances

576

2004/C 084E/4

E-0373/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of environmental protection legislation

577

2004/C 084E/5

E-0389/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco and Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

579

2004/C 084E/6

E-0394/04 by Francesco Fiori, Giorgio Lisi and Georges Garot to the CommissionSubject: Measures against hunger in the EU

580

2004/C 084E/7

E-0398/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Child slavery networks

581

2004/C 084E/8

E-0399/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Secret detention in the USA of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities because their visa is not in order

582

2004/C 084E/9

E-0402/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Crossborder hospital in La Cerdanya

582

2004/C 084E/0

P-0416/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Goose hunting in Zeeland

583

2004/C 084E/1

E-0420/04 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Fluoridation of drinking water

584

2004/C 084E/2

E-0423/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal

585

2004/C 084E/3

E-0424/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting wickerwork craftsmen in the Madeira Autonomous Region

587

2004/C 084E/4

E-0426/04 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Timetable for processing rural development projects

588

2004/C 084E/5

E-0444/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with legislation on health and safety at work

590

2004/C 084E/6

E-0451/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Food aid and food security programme

591

2004/C 084E/7

E-0457/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Strain on main roads

591

2004/C 084E/8

E-0469/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Aviation health warnings

592

2004/C 084E/9

E-0470/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: State aid to the Rome milk plant

592

2004/C 084E/0

P-0472/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Common External Tariffs

594

2004/C 084E/1

E-0473/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Pension adjustment

596

2004/C 084E/2

E-0474/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Closure of certain language sections of the European Schools

597

2004/C 084E/3

E-0477/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Banana trade

599

2004/C 084E/4

E-0482/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat

599

2004/C 084E/5

E-0483/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Rural development: young farmers

600

2004/C 084E/6

E-0484/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Rural development: less-favoured areas

601

2004/C 084E/7

E-0485/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU forest strategy: Forest Focus

602

2004/C 084E/8

E-0486/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: The new CAP and direct aid to the enlargement countries

603

2004/C 084E/9

E-0488/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU dairy sector: milk quotas and enlargement

604

2004/C 084E/0

E-0489/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Gender violence in the EU: need for European legislation

605

2004/C 084E/1

E-0491/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Land Use Plans Implementation Law in Valencia - LRAU

606

2004/C 084E/2

E-0499/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Reclaiming subsidies granted for setting up industrial activity

607

2004/C 084E/3

E-0509/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - hunger and the Portuguese community

608

2004/C 084E/4

E-0512/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Daphne programme

609

2004/C 084E/5

E-0519/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons

610

2004/C 084E/6

P-0520/04 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean

611

2004/C 084E/7

E-0522/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Prize draw mailing scams

612

2004/C 084E/8

P-0523/04 by Emmanouil Mastorakis to the CommissionSubject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks (Supplementary Answer)

613

2004/C 084E/9

E-0528/04 by Guido Sacconi, Vincenzo Lavarra and Pasqualina Napoletano to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products

614

2004/C 084E/0

E-0529/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Access to the waters of the Azores autonomous region

616

2004/C 084E/1

E-0533/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Horse passport

617

2004/C 084E/2

E-0540/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Post 2006 financial perspectives

617

2004/C 084E/3

E-0543/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: the declining contribution of EU funds to the survival of small farmers in a context of low consumer prices and low world market prices (Supplementary Answer)

618

2004/C 084E/4

E-0544/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries (Supplementary Answer)

620

2004/C 084E/5

E-0546/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Involvement of the EU in a development project in the Mexican federal state of Chiapas which is causing the resumption of an armed conflict

621

2004/C 084E/6

E-0547/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Continued levying of a tax in Germany which, pursuant to an EU directive, ought no longer to exist in 2004, and use of the revenue from it

623

2004/C 084E/7

P-0549/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment in employment and occupation

624

2004/C 084E/8

P-0550/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Employment by the European Commission of the radical Islamic thinker Tariq Ramadan in the capacity of a consultant

625

2004/C 084E/9

E-0551/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland

626

2004/C 084E/0

E-0552/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Right to collective action

626

2004/C 084E/1

E-0553/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Revision of pregnant workers directive

627

2004/C 084E/2

E-0554/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Paid paternity leave

627

2004/C 084E/3

E-0555/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Illiteracy and social exclusion

627

2004/C 084E/4

E-0556/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Definition of criteria for the recognition of disabilities

627

2004/C 084E/5

E-0557/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Directive on social protection on new forms of employment

628

2004/C 084E/6

E-0558/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Directive on individual dismissals

628

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0552/04, E-0553/04, E-0554/04, E-0555/04, E-0556/04, E-0557/04 and E-0558/04

2004/C 084E/7

E-0566/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Music censorship in China

629

2004/C 084E/8

E-0570/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Commission officials on leave

630

2004/C 084E/9

E-0576/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Electioneering activities of Romano Prodi

631

2004/C 084E/0

E-0581/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Relationships between the media and recording companies

632

2004/C 084E/1

E-0588/04 by Antonio Tajani, Giuseppe Gargani and Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Appointment and promotion of senior Commission officials

633

2004/C 084E/2

E-0589/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of an airport in the administrative and political capital of Spain: use of Cohesion Fund monies granted to Spain for extending infrastructure in Madrid

634

2004/C 084E/3

E-0592/04 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Aid to stud farms

635

2004/C 084E/4

E-0610/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Irish stud farms

635

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0592/04 and E-0610/04

2004/C 084E/5

E-0607/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Seasonal work

636

2004/C 084E/6

E-0612/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for Portuguese students studying for a master’s degree

636

2004/C 084E/7

E-0613/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Burma

637

2004/C 084E/8

E-0614/04 by Harlem Désir to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the 280-employee DHL site at Blanc Mesnil (France)

637

2004/C 084E/9

E-0619/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by extreme weather conditions in Greece

639

2004/C 084E/0

E-0622/04 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Ban on entering Russia for Danish journalist

640

2004/C 084E/1

E-0627/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain

640

2004/C 084E/2

E-0628/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks

641

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04

2004/C 084E/3

E-0632/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Hunger strike by Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari

642

2004/C 084E/4

P-0634/04 by Giovanni Procacci to the CommissionSubject: Possible infringement by Italy

643

2004/C 084E/5

E-0636/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Europe and the future of young people

644

2004/C 084E/6

E-0642/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Threat to survival of Italian small communes

645

2004/C 084E/7

E-0643/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

646

2004/C 084E/8

P-0646/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Massacre in Lira (northern Uganda)

646

2004/C 084E/9

E-0650/04 by Mauro Nobilia to the CommissionSubject: Eliminating the distinction between packaging/packaging waste and goods/goods waste

648

2004/C 084E/0

E-0651/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Position of the French language in the European institutions

649

2004/C 084E/1

E-0652/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea

649

2004/C 084E/2

E-0659/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: NGO and civil society funding - European Convention

650

2004/C 084E/3

E-0671/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s failure to report on CO2 emissions from new passenger cars

2

651

2004/C 084E/4

E-0672/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of pharmacists’ professional qualifications

651

2004/C 084E/5

E-0673/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Third level education charges for EU citizens

652

2004/C 084E/6

E-0679/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - border controls

653

2004/C 084E/7

E-0680/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - disease transmission

653

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0679/04 and E-0680/04

2004/C 084E/8

P-0688/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Application of Regulation No 1788/2003 Article 10(3)

654

2004/C 084E/9

E-0691/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Systemic insecticides

655

2004/C 084E/0

E-0696/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Funding by the Culture 2000 programme of books or translations of books which extol nationalistic policies and their despotic practices

656

2004/C 084E/1

E-0700/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Use of European Social Fund resources in connection with the Edunet project

657

2004/C 084E/2

P-0702/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Greenland halibut recovery: extraordinary measures to be adopted by the Commission

658

2004/C 084E/3

P-0703/04 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Member State contributions to the Community Budget

659

2004/C 084E/4

E-0707/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Creation of a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli

660

2004/C 084E/5

E-0711/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Specific characteristics of mountain regions and Community policy

661

2004/C 084E/6

E-0716/04 by Luis Berenguer Fuster and Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: Radio alarms

662

2004/C 084E/7

E-0720/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Export subsidies for oats

663

2004/C 084E/8

P-0722/04 by María Herranz García to the CommissionSubject: COM in olive oil

664

2004/C 084E/9

E-0726/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Aid for producer organisations in the fisheries sector

665

2004/C 084E/0

E-0727/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Information on the performance reserve for the Lazio Region

665

2004/C 084E/1

E-0735/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Funding of projects designed to transfer water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain

666

2004/C 084E/2

E-0736/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Support for regions which will not be included in Structural Fund Objective 1 on account of the so-called statistical effect

667

2004/C 084E/3

E-0737/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Student participation in the Erasmus programme

667

2004/C 084E/4

E-0739/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: The EU’s future regional policy for the outermost Mediterranean regions

668

2004/C 084E/5

P-0766/04 by Giorgio Celli to the CommissionSubject: Financing of the Llubí-Crestaxt-Pollença watercourse (Balearic Islands)

669

2004/C 084E/6

P-0768/04 by Ole Sørensen to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of war criminals to Denmark

670

2004/C 084E/7

P-0770/04 by Seán Ó Neachtain to the CommissionSubject: EU citizenship

671

2004/C 084E/8

E-0792/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Return of property by Turkey

672

2004/C 084E/9

E-0796/04 by Michel Hansenne to the CommissionSubject: Lift safety

673

2004/C 084E/0

E-0802/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering

673

2004/C 084E/1

E-0803/04 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Application for a grant by Mr Doriano Cataffo

674

2004/C 084E/2

P-0809/04 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Terrestrial trunked radio masts

675

2004/C 084E/3

E-0812/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of European legislation on phytosanitary products in the Abac case (Valencia)

676

2004/C 084E/4

E-0827/04 by María Sornosa Martínez and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop to the CommissionSubject: Extension of San Sebastián airport

678

2004/C 084E/5

P-0836/04 by Regina Bastos to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

679

2004/C 084E/6

P-0837/04 by Joaquim Piscarreta to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

680

2004/C 084E/7

P-0838/04 by Raquel Cardoso to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

680

2004/C 084E/8

P-0839/04 by João Gouveia to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

681

2004/C 084E/9

P-0840/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

682

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0836/04, P-0837/04, P-0838/04, P-0839/04 and P-0840/04

2004/C 084E/0

E-0846/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention

684

2004/C 084E/1

P-0857/04 by Vasco Graça Moura to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

685

2004/C 084E/2

P-0858/04 by Teresa Almeida Garrett to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

685

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0857/04 and P-0858/04

2004/C 084E/3

P-0859/04 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Hair dyes and serious damage to health

687

2004/C 084E/4

P-0860/04 by Eluned Morgan to the CommissionSubject: The Constitution and funding

688

2004/C 084E/5

P-0870/04 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the CommissionSubject: Work permits for workers contracted out in Italy

689

2004/C 084E/6

P-0871/04 by José Pacheco Pereira to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

690

2004/C 084E/7

P-0872/04 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Precautionary principle

692

2004/C 084E/8

E-0875/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations in northern Uganda

693

2004/C 084E/9

E-0885/04 byPaulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: List of deep-sea, pelagic and demersal fish species

694

2004/C 084E/0

E-0887/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Health implications of pet bird imports

694

2004/C 084E/1

P-0892/04 by Véronique De Keyser to the CommissionSubject: European Super-Commissioner

695

2004/C 084E/2

E-0900/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Breastfeeding in public places

696

2004/C 084E/3

P-0928/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Equality of treatment in the written test for competition COM/A/3/02, sector 2

696

2004/C 084E/4

P-0934/04 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Breakdown of EU staff by grades A, B, C and D

697

2004/C 084E/5

P-0949/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties for the Italian steel industry

698

2004/C 084E/6

P-0957/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: The stated intention of deactivating Sorefame-Bombardier

699

2004/C 084E/7

P-0966/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Chimney sweep monopoly

700

2004/C 084E/8

P-0974/04 by Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: EU-Switzerland agreements and implementation of Rönfeldt-Thévenon case law

702

2004/C 084E/9

P-1040/04 by Enrico Ferri to the CommissionSubject: Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation

703

2004/C 084E/0

E-1222/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: River access

704

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 4)

2004/C 084E/1

E-3150/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Application of the Stability Pact

705

2004/C 084E/2

P-3201/02 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion

706

2004/C 084E/3

P-3821/02 by Elena Paciotti to the CommissionSubject: Violation of asylum rights in the EU

707

2004/C 084E/4

P-3826/02 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Expulsion from Italy of the Al-Shari family

707

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3821/02 and P-3826/02

2004/C 084E/5

E-3867/02 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Salvage of the ferry Le Joola

708

2004/C 084E/6

E-3868/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten and Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Netherlands Student Grants Act

709

2004/C 084E/7

E-0797/04 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Student grants and free movement of persons

710

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3868/02 and E-0797/04

2004/C 084E/8

E-0017/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Support for Afghanistan

711

2004/C 084E/9

E-0093/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: German capital gains tax

712

2004/C 084E/0

E-0129/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programme in Phnom Penh

712

2004/C 084E/1

E-0182/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women’s rights in Iran

713

2004/C 084E/2

E-0199/03 by Margot Keßler to the CommissionSubject: Western Sahara — Visit of European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation — Human Rights

714

2004/C 084E/3

E-0243/03 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: Kenya Westlands-St Austins road scheme

715

2004/C 084E/4

E-0453/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Boris Shikhmuradov

716

2004/C 084E/5

E-0562/03 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of journalists in Gibraltar

717

2004/C 084E/6

E-0587/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Balkan sugar

717

2004/C 084E/7

E-1040/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Perugia

719

2004/C 084E/8

E-1046/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Terni

719

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/03 and E-1046/03

2004/C 084E/9

E-1163/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni

720

2004/C 084E/0

P-1396/03 by Margie Sudre to the CommissionSubject: Uniform application of a reduced rate of VAT in the restaurant sector

721

2004/C 084E/1

P-1398/03 by Arie Oostlander to the CommissionSubject: Publication of the fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen

722

2004/C 084E/2

P-1437/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Direct payments of EUR 10 million per month in EU aid to the Palestinian Authority

723

2004/C 084E/3

E-1457/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Euratom/Distortions in the electricity market

724

2004/C 084E/4

E-1500/03 by Florence Kuntz to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the Iraqi archaeological heritage

724

2004/C 084E/5

P-1509/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CommissionSubject: Sacking of Iraq’s cultural and artistic heritage — the role of the European Union

725

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1500/03 and P-1509/03

2004/C 084E/6

P-1510/03 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Direct financial assistance to the Palestine National Authority

726

2004/C 084E/7

E-1525/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Privatisation of art treasures as a result of widespread thefts from museums and inadequate checks on the international art trade

726

2004/C 084E/8

E-1939/03 by Giles Chichester to the CommissionSubject: Commission quarterly briefings and Small Business Europe: the participation of government-funded national bodies in Commission briefings

727

2004/C 084E/9

E-1983/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a secondary school in the small town of Rizokarpaso in Turkish-occupied Cyprus

728

2004/C 084E/0

E-2033/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Re-opening of Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso

729

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1983/03 and E-2033/03

2004/C 084E/1

P-2376/03 by Lucio Manisco to the CommissionSubject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

729

2004/C 084E/2

E-2748/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Rizokarpasso primary school

730

2004/C 084E/3

E-3129/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Guinea-Bissau, Commission support

731

2004/C 084E/4

P-3142/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Career movements of Directors-General

732

2004/C 084E/5

E-3311/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Rotation principle in Directorates-General

732

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3142/03 and E-3311/03

2004/C 084E/6

P-3154/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Mobile telephone safety (Supplementary Answer)

733

2004/C 084E/7

E-3325/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Community expenditure

734

2004/C 084E/8

E-3464/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: The use of Tetrapol technology in the EU

735

2004/C 084E/9

E-3470/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Health risk reports relating to Tetrapol use

736

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3464/03 and E-3470/03

2004/C 084E/0

E-3471/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Buildings in Es Trenc-Salobrar de Campos

736

2004/C 084E/1

E-3514/03 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Course financed by means of the Structural Funds (Supplementary Answer)

737

2004/C 084E/2

E-3574/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: European Agreement on the transmission of applications for Legal Aid

738

2004/C 084E/3

E-3625/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Standardisation of national identity documents

738

2004/C 084E/4

E-3748/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato

739

2004/C 084E/5

E-3832/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Global Drug Facility

740

2004/C 084E/6

E-3840/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Race Directive (2000/43/EC)

741

2004/C 084E/7

E-3870/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Ecological volume of the river Júcar and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

741

2004/C 084E/8

P-3924/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Seaworthiness of the Geroi Sevastopolya

742

2004/C 084E/9

E-3948/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Moves by the USA or other countries to make EU Member States comply with their wishes by rewarding or penalising European companies depending on the Member State in which the company is based

744

2004/C 084E/0

E-3980/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Yukos affair

745

2004/C 084E/1

E-4055/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energy

746

2004/C 084E/2

E-4056/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the environmental acquis

747

2004/C 084E/3

E-4066/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Biometric passports

748

2004/C 084E/4

E-4068/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful toll demanded for the Turin-Milan motorway

749

2004/C 084E/5

E-0003/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Trade in wild birds

750

2004/C 084E/6

E-0023/04 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Inadequate information to the Commission concerning the Bothnia Line

751

2004/C 084E/7

E-0030/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Landfill and gravel extraction sites

752

2004/C 084E/8

E-0044/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Val Jumela

752

2004/C 084E/9

E-0050/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Conflict over pollution — between the Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) and the people and municipal authorities of Pontevedra

753

2004/C 084E/0

E-0053/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia) arising from the ban on building merchant vessels: action of the Commission and the Spanish government

755

2004/C 084E/1

E-0054/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with the Kyoto protocol by the Spanish state

756

2004/C 084E/2

E-0068/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

757

2004/C 084E/3

E-0071/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish National Hydrological Plan dam on the River Narla in Lugo (Galicia) a scheduled Site of Community Importance within the Natura 2000 network

758

2004/C 084E/4

E-0077/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Waste water treatment in Ireland

759

2004/C 084E/5

E-0080/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Rheumatism and Biomed programme

759

2004/C 084E/6

E-0081/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of IPPC Directive in Ireland

760

2004/C 084E/7

E-0092/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Evolution of electricity prices, investment in the energy sector

760

2004/C 084E/8

E-0101/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Position of SMUs in the system for the funding of the EU’s research activities

761

2004/C 084E/9

P-0110/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Legality of certain EU decisions should the Kyoto Protocol founder

764

2004/C 084E/0

E-0181/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security

765

2004/C 084E/1

E-0182/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security

766

2004/C 084E/2

E-0183/04 by Charlotte Cederschiöld to the CommissionSubject: Network and information security

766

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0181/04, E-0182/04 and E-0183/04

2004/C 084E/3

E-0267/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Projects offering alternatives to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (SNHP)

767

2004/C 084E/4

E-0300/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Financing for the new Athens airport (Supplementary Answer)

768

2004/C 084E/5

E-0309/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Extension of TAEIX’s area of activity to the Western Balkans

769

2004/C 084E/6

P-0313/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Galway incinerator

770

2004/C 084E/7

E-0319/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Funding of research with embryonic stem cells

771

2004/C 084E/8

E-0326/04 by Willi Piecyk to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for new fishing nets

772

2004/C 084E/9

E-0328/04 by Marco Cappato, Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Gianfranco Dell’Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova, Olivier Dupuis and Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Chinese New Year parade in Paris

773

2004/C 084E/0

E-0331/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Setting up of a regional coordination centre for social policy for the Balkans

773

2004/C 084E/1

E-0334/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The unchanged human rights and democracy situation in China and Hong Kong, the threat to Taiwan and the need for the arms embargo

774

2004/C 084E/2

E-0335/04 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Extension of operating licence for Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant

775

2004/C 084E/3

P-0337/04 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Subsidies for Parmalat

776

2004/C 084E/4

E-0347/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Use of ACT in treatment of malaria

777

2004/C 084E/5

E-0350/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Travel agencies: repercussions of the Alitalia crisis on employment

779

2004/C 084E/6

E-0351/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Travel agencies: serious difficulties for operators and customers

779

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0350/04 and E-0351/04

2004/C 084E/7

P-0358/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Proceedings concerning the German deposit on drinks cans

781

2004/C 084E/8

P-0377/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Sustainable management of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean and measures to combat illegal fishing

781

2004/C 084E/9

E-0396/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Guantánamo-on-Thames?

783

2004/C 084E/0

E-0397/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Legalising irregular migrants working in the Union

783

2004/C 084E/1

P-0407/04 by Hugues Martin to the CommissionSubject: CRAFT Community programmes

784

2004/C 084E/2

P-0408/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands

786

2004/C 084E/3

E-0410/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Aer Rianta

787

2004/C 084E/4

E-0412/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The regulation of exportation of timber from Indonesia

787

2004/C 084E/5

E-0414/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The treatment of North Korean refugees in the People’s Republic of China

788

2004/C 084E/6

E-0418/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Security of EC cards

789

2004/C 084E/7

E-0447/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Exports of peat to Italy

790

2004/C 084E/8

E-0448/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Research on non-human primates in Münster, Germany

791

2004/C 084E/9

E-0450/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeit banknotes

792

2004/C 084E/0

E-0452/04 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: INFO 2000 programme

793

2004/C 084E/1

E-0462/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Guinea-Bissau - Commission support

794

2004/C 084E/2

E-0463/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Europe - terrorism

795

2004/C 084E/3

E-0468/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Competition in the glass sector

797

2004/C 084E/4

E-0479/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Commission open competitions

798

2004/C 084E/5

E-0481/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Blue Dragon

800

2004/C 084E/6

E-0487/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU dairy sector: Argentina and the WTO peace clause

800

2004/C 084E/7

E-0498/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Community warning on Spanish productivity

801

2004/C 084E/8

E-0508/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portugal - nuclear waste

802

2004/C 084E/9

E-0511/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Provision of aid to South Africa

804

2004/C 084E/0

P-0525/04 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Potato ring rot

805

2004/C 084E/1

E-0541/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Yielding to the USA’s pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning passengers in advance of a possible agreement

806

2004/C 084E/2

E-0548/04 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Requirement to keep poultry indoors

808

2004/C 084E/3

E-0562/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Incidence of blue-baby syndrome in EU Member States

809

2004/C 084E/4

E-0564/04 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Ship-to-ship oil transfers

810

2004/C 084E/5

P-0568/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Final report concerning Eurostat

811

2004/C 084E/6

E-0573/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Start of construction work on the Brenner base tunnel

811

2004/C 084E/7

E-0575/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Electioneering activities of Mrs Diamantopoulou

812

2004/C 084E/8

E-0579/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Vasova lagoon

813

2004/C 084E/9

E-0582/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Application of Accounting Standard IAS 32 to co-operatives

814

2004/C 084E/0

E-0595/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Horse racing prizes in Greece

815

2004/C 084E/1

P-0600/04 by Generoso Andria to the CommissionSubject: Remuneration of amateur football managers

816

2004/C 084E/2

E-0602/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Global assessment of the major Ebro water transfer project

817

2004/C 084E/3

P-0608/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: The Commission’s political intentions re GMOs

818

2004/C 084E/4

E-0611/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Terrorism: drawing up a European directive providing for the presence of air marshals on board aircraft.

819

2004/C 084E/5

P-0615/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Role of certificates in rules of origin

820

2004/C 084E/6

E-0618/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Decision by the Dutch parliament to expel thousands of immigrants

822

2004/C 084E/7

P-0621/04 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Revision of TEN-T

822

2004/C 084E/8

E-0623/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Schedules of airlines from third countries

823

2004/C 084E/9

E-0629/04 by Willi Piecyk, Gerhard Schmid and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European Networks - development of the Danube

824

2004/C 084E/0

E-0630/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Official Development Assistance (ODA) of the Union: funding by Member States, actions in the Balkans and application of conditionality and Community rules

825

2004/C 084E/1

E-0631/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of the interest rate subsidy for border regions in Greece

826

2004/C 084E/2

E-0637/04 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC)

827

2004/C 084E/3

E-0639/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Torrentes de Mácara on the river Ulha (Galicia): three priceless rapids threatened with destruction by the building of a dam

829

2004/C 084E/4

E-0647/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Urban waste water treatment in Benidorm, (Alicante province) Spain

830

2004/C 084E/5

E-0648/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC into Spanish law

831

2004/C 084E/6

P-0654/04 by Reinhold Messner to the CommissionSubject: Brenner axis

832

2004/C 084E/7

E-0655/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Algeria

833

2004/C 084E/8

E-0657/04 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Misfuelling of motor vehicles

834

2004/C 084E/9

E-0662/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Efforts to adopt uniform and transparent rules on valuing the assets of financial institutions and the resistance of the EFR to the IASB

835

2004/C 084E/0

P-0663/04 by Samuli Pohjamo to the CommissionSubject: Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland

837

2004/C 084E/1

P-0664/04 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez to the CommissionSubject: Legislation on yoghurt

838

2004/C 084E/2

E-0668/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Irish Government’s failure to cooperate with Lough Ree investigation

839

2004/C 084E/3

E-0683/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Medical certificates

840

2004/C 084E/4

E-0685/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by countries such as America and Russia

840

2004/C 084E/5

E-0689/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC — competence of Member States to define occupational retirement provision

842

2004/C 084E/6

E-0690/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Complaints about the infringement of the property rights of building cooperatives in Greece

843

2004/C 084E/7

E-0692/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Invasion of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

844

2004/C 084E/8

E-0693/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak, Ieke van den Burg and Joke Swiebel to the CommissionSubject: Proposal COM(2003) 657 and Directive 86/378/EEC

845

2004/C 084E/9

E-0694/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Auditing the Commission’s external activity

846

2004/C 084E/0

E-0697/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: State aid to credit unions

846

2004/C 084E/1

E-0698/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Tinned food and olive oil

847

2004/C 084E/2

E-0699/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Preserves and olive oil

848

2004/C 084E/3

E-0701/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Use of the appellations vintage and tawny by third countries

848

2004/C 084E/4

P-0705/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Creation of an observatory to study the phenomenon of organised mafia-type crime and similar forms of criminality in the EU

850

2004/C 084E/5

E-0706/04 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Wine

852

2004/C 084E/6

E-0712/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Increasing the Portuguese annual sugar quota

854

2004/C 084E/7

P-0713/04 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Management of the risk assessment process on zinc

855

2004/C 084E/8

P-0714/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Conversion of ENEL’s Valdaliga Nord power station at Civitavecchia

856

2004/C 084E/9

E-0719/04 by Ieke van den Burg to the CommissionSubject: Training and development funds in the Netherlands as a contribution to the Lisbon strategy

857

2004/C 084E/0

E-0729/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Professional recognition for the police

859

2004/C 084E/1

E-0731/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Social and family assistance for the police

860

2004/C 084E/2

E-0732/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Dam-building on the international stretch of the river Minho

861

2004/C 084E/3

E-0738/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status

861

2004/C 084E/4

E-0741/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Fiscal incentives to encourage job creation

862

2004/C 084E/5

E-0743/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: MEDA programme and regions

863

2004/C 084E/6

E-0745/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Facilitating access by SMEs to risk capital

864

2004/C 084E/7

E-0746/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Reform in the fruit and vegetable sector

865

2004/C 084E/8

E-0748/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Synergy in EU funding programmes

866

2004/C 084E/9

E-0750/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of registering rating agencies in Europe

867

2004/C 084E/0

E-0751/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Streamlining the Commission’s coordination of Member States’ economic policies

868

2004/C 084E/1

E-0752/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Enhancing the image of the euro and the European Union in non-member countries

868

2004/C 084E/2

E-0753/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of the international role of the euro in transactions between eurozone countries and third countries

869

2004/C 084E/3

E-0754/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a European legal framework for hedge funds

870

2004/C 084E/4

E-0755/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Statistics relating to the harmonised consumer price index in Europe

871

2004/C 084E/5

E-0757/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Strengthening the role of market operators in the integration of European financial markets

872

2004/C 084E/6

E-0758/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Loss of investor confidence following recent financial scandals

873

2004/C 084E/7

E-0759/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: General framework for ensuring European financial market stability

874

2004/C 084E/8

E-0761/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: European passport and the sale of financial products in Europe

874

2004/C 084E/9

P-0767/04 by Brian Crowley to the CommissionSubject: eEurope 2005 Action Plan

875

2004/C 084E/0

P-0771/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: La Breña II dam - compensation measures

876

2004/C 084E/1

E-0780/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in the United Kingdom

877

2004/C 084E/2

E-0781/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Liberalisation of the electricity market — licences for river diversions

878

2004/C 084E/3

E-0782/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Liberalisation of the electricity market — special protective provisions

879

2004/C 084E/4

E-0785/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Deportation of parents of Irish/EU citizens

880

2004/C 084E/5

E-0791/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000)

881

2004/C 084E/6

E-0807/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Invalidity of a civil aviation pilot’s licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences (ATPL)

882

2004/C 084E/7

E-0816/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of diplomas

883

2004/C 084E/8

E-0818/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden

884

2004/C 084E/9

E-0819/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: The European School in Amsterdam

886

2004/C 084E/0

P-0825/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service challenged by the Commission

886

2004/C 084E/1

E-0829/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Parmatour: tourism concern owned by the Tanzi family, involved in the Parmalat crisis

888

2004/C 084E/2

E-0831/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Radar installation on Pico do Areeiro — Environmental impact study

889

2004/C 084E/3

E-0832/04 by Anne Ferreira, Ioannis Souladakis and Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Theatrical signers and audience members with hearing difficulties

889

2004/C 084E/4

E-0834/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Nine years’ imprisonment for supplying 0,5 grams of methadone in Russia

890

2004/C 084E/5

P-0842/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Basis for economic growth

891

2004/C 084E/6

P-0843/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Approval by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of the Ronchi south-Trieste high-speed rail link as part of Corridor 5

892

2004/C 084E/7

P-0844/04 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Aid to shipbuilding in breach of EU legislation

894

2004/C 084E/8

P-0851/04 by Gianni Vattimo to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare

895

2004/C 084E/9

E-0855/04 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse to the CommissionSubject: Security in Brussels

896

2004/C 084E/0

E-0856/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting traditional industries

896

2004/C 084E/1

E-0866/04 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: European subsidies for the Flemish Community

897

2004/C 084E/2

E-0869/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: ECHO and Chechnya

898

2004/C 084E/3

E-0879/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Romano Prodi - new centre party

899

2004/C 084E/4

E-0880/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, Article 5

900

2004/C 084E/5

E-0886/04 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Road toll system

901

2004/C 084E/6

E-0888/04 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Slaughterhouses in Greece

901

2004/C 084E/7

E-0890/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for flying instructors to give instruction

902

2004/C 084E/8

E-0891/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal

903

2004/C 084E/9

E-0893/04 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Costs of cross-border transfer payments

904

2004/C 084E/00

P-0895/04 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Dispute concerning port dues in Helsingborg

905

2004/C 084E/01

E-0897/04 by Monica Frassoni, Caroline Lucas, Jean Lambert, Patricia McKenna, Giorgio Celli, Kathalijne Buitenweg, Pasqualina Napoletano, Marco Cappato, Giovanni Procacci and Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect implementation in Italy of directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of laying hens

906

2004/C 084E/02

E-0898/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Intimidation of well-known Israeli conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of Palestinian territory by subjecting them to lengthy and repeated imprisonment

907

2004/C 084E/03

P-0903/04 by Ingo Friedrich to the CommissionSubject: Termination of European Documentation Centres’ (EDCs) preferential subscription to the EC/EU Official Journal (printed edition)

908

2004/C 084E/04

E-0906/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The Threshold for British teachers in the European Schools

909

2004/C 084E/05

E-0907/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the profession of optometrist

910

2004/C 084E/06

E-0909/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: To Serve and Protect - Netherlands Railways

911

2004/C 084E/07

E-0910/04 by Ingo Friedrich to the CommissionSubject: Aid for olive production; common organisation of the market in olives

911

2004/C 084E/08

E-0912/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Directive 2001/83/EC and Braille requirements

912

2004/C 084E/09

E-0915/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Directive 2001/83/EC and borderline products

913

2004/C 084E/10

E-0923/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme

914

2004/C 084E/11

E-0925/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Medical treatment for haemophilia sufferers

914

2004/C 084E/12

E-0926/04 by Claude Turmes to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety in the European institutions

915

2004/C 084E/13

E-0927/04 by Claude Turmes to the CommissionSubject: Practice of prototypes at Eur-OP

916

2004/C 084E/14

E-0931/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Standards on portable liquid oxygen devices

918

2004/C 084E/15

E-0932/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Contribution to EU economy by fisheries

919

2004/C 084E/16

P-0936/04 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CommissionSubject: EU Economic EU support for positive publicity

919

2004/C 084E/17

E-0944/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Components of small toys in food products

920

2004/C 084E/18

E-0951/04 by Angelika Niebler to the CommissionSubject: Interpretative notes relating to the transposition into national law of the Directives on the electricity and gas markets in the European Union

921

2004/C 084E/19

E-0952/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88

922

2004/C 084E/20

E-0953/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory practices by Romania

923

2004/C 084E/21

E-0960/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Language discrimination in recruitment procedures for European institutions

924

2004/C 084E/22

E-0962/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The increasing dangers to public health and the environment caused by the increase in emissions of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines

925

2004/C 084E/23

E-0963/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The Euro 4 standard and consequent restrictions on the fitting of particle traps to prevent the emission of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines

925

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0962/04 and E-0963/04

2004/C 084E/24

E-0968/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Electromagnetic Compliance Standard

927

2004/C 084E/25

P-1001/04 by Ulla Sandbæk to the CommissionSubject: Critical dialogue with Iranian theocracy on minorities

928

2004/C 084E/26

E-1011/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Extremely grave human rights situation in Vietnam and Laos

929

2004/C 084E/27

E-1020/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Emergency on the ferrous metals market

929

2004/C 084E/28

E-1024/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Olympic Airways

930

2004/C 084E/29

P-1026/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Axle weighing of HGVs at the German-Czech border

931

2004/C 084E/30

E-1033/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding the public lending right in Portuguese libraries

932

2004/C 084E/31

E-1034/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission

933

2004/C 084E/32

P-1041/04 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Number portability in connection with mobile telephony

934

2004/C 084E/33

E-1042/04 by Roger Helmer and Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Pensions: discrimination against private pensions

935

2004/C 084E/34

E-1057/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Implications for the Community textile sector of certain trade practices on the part of China

936

2004/C 084E/35

P-1062/04 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Economic impact of migration following enlargement of the European Union

937

2004/C 084E/36

P-1063/04 by Marie-Françoise Duthu to the CommissionSubject: Russo-Chechen conflict — mediation by the European Union between the governments of Vladimir Putin and Aslan Maskhadov

938

2004/C 084E/37

E-1072/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Commemoration in the town of Greccio of the first crib featuring live animals

939

2004/C 084E/38

P-1082/04 by Adeline Hazan to the CommissionSubject: Decision taken by the Netherlands to expel more than 26000 whose applications for asylum have been rejected

940

2004/C 084E/39

P-1084/04 by Richard Howitt to the CommissionSubject: Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive in respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace

941

2004/C 084E/40

P-1088/04 by Arlene McCarthy to the CommissionSubject: Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive with respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace

941

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1084/04 and P-1088/04

2004/C 084E/41

P-1085/04 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of plant health products under Directive 91/414/EEC

942

2004/C 084E/42

P-1087/04 by Kyösti Virrankoski to the CommissionSubject: Uncertainties regarding Finland’s Natura 2000 network

944

2004/C 084E/43

P-1093/04 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Staging of football matches between TSV Alemannia Aachen, a German football club, and foreign opponents at the Kerkrade Stadium in the Netherlands

944

2004/C 084E/44

P-1106/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination against bluetongue

945

2004/C 084E/45

P-1107/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application

946

2004/C 084E/46

P-1108/04 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee

947

2004/C 084E/47

E-1109/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income

948

2004/C 084E/48

E-1115/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Work Discrimination Directive 2000/78/EC in Ireland

949

2004/C 084E/49

P-1116/04 by Uma Aaltonen to the CommissionSubject: Sex education for children and young people in the enlarging Union

950

2004/C 084E/50

P-1127/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Drilling for gas a significant threat to the Waddenzee

951

2004/C 084E/51

E-1136/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the right to vote in European elections in Northern Ireland that have so far disenfranchised 16,5 % of the population because of a complicated system of annual individual voter registration

952

2004/C 084E/52

P-1151/04 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Commissioning medical treatment abroad

952

2004/C 084E/53

P-1167/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Regulation No 1954/2003: fishing activity in the Azores EEZ

953

2004/C 084E/54

P-1170/04 by Manuel dos Santos to the CommissionSubject: Construction of the Amoreiras tunnel in Lisbon

955

2004/C 084E/55

P-1203/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

956

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/1

---

(2004/C 84 E/0001)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0021/03

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject:   Appointment of senior staff in the European Commission — medical service

ILO (International Labour Organisation) Recommendation No 112 concerning occupational health services in places of employment establishes, as one of the professional guarantees designed to ensure that there is a relationship of trust between employers, workers and their occupational health service physician, ‘professional and moral independence’ vis-à-vis all those concerned.

In its resolution of 1 July 1960 on safety and hygiene at work the European Parliament recognises that occupational medicine is practised in occupational health services in companies and in the work of occupational physicians.

In its Recommendation of 20 July 1962 on company medical services (1) the Commission calls on the Member States to officially recognise occupational medicine in enterprises, emphasising that these services should preferably be headed, wherever possible, by full-time occupational physicians.

Can the Commission say why it saw fit to ignore the fundamental principles of the ILO recommendation, Parliament's resolution and its own recommendation to the Member States, by appointing an official with no medical knowledge as head of its medical service?

Does the Commission not consider that decisions of this kind may severely harm its credibility in the eyes of the other institutions and European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

Contrary to what the Honourable Member appears to have been led to believe by the information at his disposal, the Commission does not disregard any of its own recommendations to the Member States on the importance of occupational health services.

After the previous head of the Medical Service in Brussels retired, the Commission decision in 2002 was taken specifically for the purpose of reinforcing its Medical Service in Brussels by giving greater attention to the management of this service through the appointment of two members of staff to lead it. The post of Unit Head was entrusted to an administrator with proven management experience and a new function of Medical Adviser — with full responsibility for the medical aspects of the service — was created. That post was assigned to a medical doctor with well established and recognised expertise in occupational health matters. The Medical Adviser is not inferior in grade or in status to any person in the Medical Service.

The Commission was assisted in coming to the decision by knowledge of the manner in which hospital management is organised in some Member States.

The Commission is sure that the Honourable Member will want to correct the impression inadvertently given by his question that ‘an official with no medical knowledge’ was appointed by the Commission to head its Medical Service, in contravention of ILO recommendations.

---

(1)  OJ B 80, 31.8.1962, p. 2181.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/2

---

(2004/C 84 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject:   A new generation of mercenaries

Although the system of old-style mercenaries is not yet entirely a thing of the past, a new type of mercenary is coming into existence in conflicts in Africa. The soldiers concerned provide military services, even including peace-keeping and monitoring of the enforcement of cease-fires. The most important development here is the establishment of small military groups which offer their services to governments and commercial enterprises.

| 1. | Does the Commission have any information about the activities of foreign soldiers in conflicts in Africa? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission have any information about the activities of foreign soldiers in conflicts in Africa?

| 2. | Can the Commission, in particular, indicate the role which such soldiers are playing in border wars in West Africa? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission, in particular, indicate the role which such soldiers are playing in border wars in West Africa?

| 3. | To what extent is the EU taking account of this new phenomenon in its strategies for restoring peace and settling conflicts in Africa? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent is the EU taking account of this new phenomenon in its strategies for restoring peace and settling conflicts in Africa?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of newspaper articles and rumours in expatriate circles in Africa on mercenaries involved in African conflicts. The Commission has on an ad hoc basis also been informed that in some cases mercenaries offer their services to governments and/or commercial companies. The Commission is, however, not in a position to obtain this specialised intelligence information other than on an incidental basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of newspaper articles and rumours in expatriate circles in Africa on mercenaries involved in African conflicts. The Commission has on an ad hoc basis also been informed that in some cases mercenaries offer their services to governments and/or commercial companies. The Commission is, however, not in a position to obtain this specialised intelligence information other than on an incidental basis.

| 2. | There are rumours and reported witness accounts that demobilised ex-combatants from Sierra Leone have joined rebel activities in Liberia and Western Ivory Coast. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There are rumours and reported witness accounts that demobilised ex-combatants from Sierra Leone have joined rebel activities in Liberia and Western Ivory Coast.

| 3. | The Commission supports initiatives in the framework of the Rabat peace process for the Mano River Union and of the International Contact Group for Liberia to promote a cease fire and peace talks between the Government of Liberia and the rebels active in North-west Liberia. The Commission is also supportive of the re-integration of Sierra Leonan ex-combatants into the society. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission supports initiatives in the framework of the Rabat peace process for the Mano River Union and of the International Contact Group for Liberia to promote a cease fire and peace talks between the Government of Liberia and the rebels active in North-west Liberia. The Commission is also supportive of the re-integration of Sierra Leonan ex-combatants into the society.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/3

---

(2004/C 84 E/0003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject:   Hunger strike by Mr Jebali

Mr Hamadi Jebali, the former editor of the Al Fajr weekly periodical, has been on hunger strike since 13 January 2003, i.e. for 36 days. According to Tunisia's International Association for Political Prisoner Support he was transferred on 12 February 2003 to the emergency ward of a hospital in Bizerte. Despite numerous appeals from within Tunisia and around the world calling for Mr Jebali's release, there has still been no reaction from the Tunisian authorities. On 6 February a member of Reporters sans frontières, who had asked to be allowed to visit Mr Jebali in the Nador prison in Bizerte (in the north of the country), had his request turned down by the Directorate-General for Prisons. Mr Jebali's lawyer, Mr Mohamed Nouri, and his wife have reported that he is coming under intense pressure from members of the State Security Department to abandon his hunger strike. His wife and his daughters — whose house is under surveillance — have now had their passports taken away from them. In 1992 the military court in Tunis sentenced Mr Jebali to 16 years in prison for ‘belonging to an illegal organisation’. At the time he had just completed a one-year prison sentence for having published an article in which he criticised the military court system.

What action has the Commission taken in order to help Mr Jebali? Has it been able (via its delegation in Tunis) to make direct enquiries regarding the conditions in which Mr Jebali is being held and the state of his health, now that he has been on hunger strike for over a month? Has it raised the issue of a general amnesty for crimes of conscience committed during the 1980s and 1990s and, if so, how have the Tunisian authorities reacted?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/3

---

(2004/C 84 E/0004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject:   Smear campaign against Mohammed Charfi

Mohammed Charfi, an eminent professor of private law and former president of the Tunisian League for Human Rights (1988-1989), has recently been the target of threats from the imam of Kairouan, Abdehrrame Khlif (who was a Member of Parliament for the Tunisian ruling party between 1989 and 1994). The threats were first uttered in June 2002, in a sermon fanatical in the extreme, and have been circulating over the past few days in the form of a video recording. They are based on grotesque misrepresentation of Mr Charfi's words and amount to an out-and-out call to aggression. Mr Charfi, who served as minister of education from 1989 to 1994, has won a Unesco award and, among other things, is the author of an essay entitled ‘Islam and Freedom’, which was published in France in 1998 but initially banned in Tunisia. After the ban was lifted last year, the pro-government press launched a smear campaign against him.

Is the Commission aware of the plight of Mohammed Charfi and has it asked the Tunisian authorities to explain why a long-running campaign of harassment and slander has been openly directed against him? Given that the Ben Ali regime is using the crackdown on the En Nahdha Islamic movement as a pretext for systematic assaults on fundamental freedoms, can the Commission remain indifferent to the government connivance that has allowed the imam of Kairouan to disseminate his intolerant fundamentalist imprecations? Does it not believe that it should employ every political and diplomatic means to demonstrate its opposition to the increasingly repressive tendencies of the Tunisian regime, thereby championing the democratic values underlying the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0561/03 and E-0646/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Commission is following Mr Hamadi Jebali's and other prisoners' hunger strikes with great concern. The Honourable Member is aware of the Union's and the Commission's position in particular on detention conditions in Tunisia and of the instruments at our disposal to improve the situation notably of political prisoners. (See the Commission's answers to his written questions E-0250/03 and 0263/03 (1), E-3031/02 (2), and E-2526/02, E-2597/02 and E-2629/02 (3)).

Through its heads of mission in Tunis, the Union is continuing to monitor the hunger strike movement in Tunisian prisons, as well as Mr Jebali's situation.

The issue of a general amnesty for crimes of conscience committed between 1980 and 1990 has not been raised by the Commission with the Tunisian authorities.

The Commission is not aware of the events reported by the Honourable Member regarding Mr Mohammed Charfi. It is therefore not aware of acts or statements attributed to Kairouan's religious authorities, but will seek relevant information via its Delegation in Tunis.

Democratic values constitute an important element of the association agreement and the Presidency of the Union, like the Commission, which is associated with it in tasks relating to these issues, is continuing to press in its political dialogue with the Tunisian authorities, for their implementation in Tunisia.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 202.

(2)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 90.

(3)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 26.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/4

---

(2004/C 84 E/0005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   Freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany

Restrictions on the freedom of nationals from one Member State to establish themselves within the territory of another Member State are prohibited under Article 43 of the EC Treaty, save where they are justified in the public interest. Those restrictions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice as including rules or provisions which apply both to nationals and to non-nationals alike but which in practice make it problematic or less advantageous for nationals from one Member State to establish themselves in another.

Annex VIIIb of the 28 September 1988 Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO) lays down the requirements which bodies wishing to carry out roadworthiness tests in Germany must fulfil in order to secure the necessary authorisation from each federal state. One such requirement is that of submitting a series of documents and demonstrating that certain conditions of a practical nature have been met, including one to the effect that the body seeking authorisation must comprise a minimum of 60 independent experts and that a minimum number of those experts must be based within the country in which recognition is being sought.

Does the Commission not think that insisting that those requirements be met before authorisation can be granted restricts freedom of establishment, since it calls for business investment to be made and entrepreneurial risks to be taken in advance? In practice, this makes it less attractive for a national from some other Member State to set up a vehicle roadworthiness testing business in Germany.

Does the Commission not consider that the requirements laid down under German law place disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of establishment, even if such restrictions may be justified in the public interest?

Does the Commission not consider the German law in question to be incompatible with the general principles underlying Council Directive 96/96/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

In response to Written Question 620/03 (2) from the Honourable Member on the freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany and to Oral Questions 150/03 (3) and 153/03 (3) from Honourable Members Valdivielso de Cué and Vidal-Quadras Roca on the same subject, the Commission launched an enquiry concerning the provisions laid down in Annex VIIIb to the StVZO of 28 September 1998.

The enquiry reveals that bodies wishing to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany must first secure the necessary authorisation from each federal state and fulfil a whole series of requirements relating primarily to the constitution of the body and management by a minimum of 60 experts including a sufficient number of inspection engineers established in the area in which recognition has been obtained.

Under Article 43 of the EC Treaty all measures restricting the freedom of establishment in a disproportionate manner are prohibited. In addition, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, Article 43 of the EC Treaty prohibits not only discrimination based on nationality (4) but also all covert forms of discrimination (5), as well as stating that ‘any national measure (...) even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty’ (6). However, restrictions could nevertheless still be compatible with the Treaty if they were justified ‘by pressing reasons of public interest (see to that effect, judgment in Case 71/76 Thieffry v. Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats à la Cour de Paris [1977] ECR 765, paragraphs 12 and 15). It would however also be necessary in such a case for application of the national rules in question to be appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective they pursue and not to go beyond what is necessary for that purpose’ (6).

According to the information provided by the German authorities, the provisions contained in the StVZO are intended to guarantee the independence and efficiency of organisations in charge of roadworthiness testing and to ensure that such organisations have efficient and transparent internal structure in the area in which recognition has been obtained.

Therefore, even if it seems legitimate for Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that the quality and methods of roadworthiness testing carried out on vehicles with the intention of maintaining road safety, the fact still remains that they must nevertheless endeavour to do so in a manner which respects the principle of proportionality. The Commission has doubts concerning the proportionality of the provisions in StVZO. This Written Question will now be registered as a complaint within the framework of the procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003.

(3)  April 2003 part-session.

(4)  ECJ, 30 March 1993, Konstantidinis, 168/91, paragraph 12.

(5)  ECJ, 13 July 1993, Commerzbank, C-330/91, paragraph 14.

(6)  ECJ, 31 March 1993, Kraus, C-19/92, paragraph 32.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/5

---

(2004/C 84 E/0006)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0759/03

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject:   The European Commission's medical service

The Commission's reply to written question P-0021/03 (1) shows that the appointment of senior staff in the medical service hinged on erroneous reference to the hospital management system in some Member States and on a mistaken desire to equate the prevention and monitoring duties of an occupational health service with the essentially curative aims of hospitals.

The Commission and the other Community institutions are aware of this distinction and have always placed the medical services under the authority of an occupational health physician, thereby adhering in letter and in spirit to the recommendations of the ILO and of the Commission itself.

In the light of the above, and since it is impossible to see which ‘non-strictly medical’ facets of the medical service justify having an administrative official as the head of that service, does the Commission not consider that the new arrangements for that service are incompatible with the need for a sound management of resources and liable to undermine the principle that there should always be mutual trust between the institution and its officials?

What measures has the Commission taken to prevent the head of the medical service — who has absolutely no medical knowledge — from becoming party, even inadvertently, to health-related data contained in the files processed by the medical service? Has the European Data Protection Supervisor been notified of these measures, pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

The Commission reaffirms the fact, as stated in the reply to the Honourable Member's uestion No P-0021/03 (3), that the medical side of the Medical Service is managed entirely by the Medical Adviser whose qualifications and experience are beyond doubt.

The Administrator whose function the Honourable Member questions has no access to medical data. The Commission also points out that Article 17 of the Staff Regulations, to which Article 49 of Regulation 45/2001 (4) refers, gives guarantees of protection of the confidentiality of personal data. It is the provisions of that Article which ensure that the personnel of the Medical Service secretariat, who may see medical data, are subject to an obligation of strict confidentiality.

Article 10(3) of Regulation 45/2001 provides that ‘ ... those data are processed by a health professional subject to the obligation of professional secrecy or by another person also subject to an equivalent obligation of secrecy’.

Provisions have been adopted so that any processing operations which could be likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects will, for the purposes of Article 27, be notified to the European Data Protection Supervisor once he has taken up his duties.

The reference to hospital management in the previous answer was not ‘erroneous’ and it was merely intended to illustrate managerial options in large organisations in order to assist the Honourable Member. Hospitals and other medical services do, as he says, have ‘essentially curative aims’. They also need to be run effectively as organisations. Putting an administrator in charge of administration enables the medical expert to focus exclusively on the critically important medical functions of the service.

---

(1)  See page 1.

(2)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(3)  See page 1.

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/6

---

(2004/C 84 E/0007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject:   Contracts with management consultants

Management consultants such as Andersen Consulting or Ernst & Young have hit the headlines recently for allegedly inadequate advisory services. Andersen came in for criticism over the Enron scandal and Ernst & Young is now faced with a demand for CHF 3 billion following more serious allegations of unsatisfactory work for the Cantonal Bank of Geneva.

These incidents give rise to the following questions:

| — | How many contracts were concluded in 2002 between the Commission and management consultants and what is their total value? |
| --- | --- |

—

How many contracts were concluded in 2002 between the Commission and management consultants and what is their total value?

| — | Has the Commission ever become aware of consultancy work being carried out unsatisfactorily? What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing advisory services? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the Commission ever become aware of consultancy work being carried out unsatisfactorily? What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing advisory services?

| — | Has a consultancy contract ever proved damaging to the Commission? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has a consultancy contract ever proved damaging to the Commission?

| — | If so, to what extent and was compensation demanded? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

—

If so, to what extent and was compensation demanded? If not, why not?

| — | Why are management consultants and not Commission officials called on to carry out certain tasks? |
| --- | --- |

—

Why are management consultants and not Commission officials called on to carry out certain tasks?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

| 1. | The model of the service contract currently used by the Commission refers in more than ten articles to the assessment and quality control of advisory services. The most important clause is related to the definition of the subject of the contract and thereby referring to the technical specifications in the invitation to tender as well as to the tender itself. The contractor is obliged to perform his obligations with the highest professional standards. In order to enforce these major obligations the clause establishes a schedule for interim reports and audits. Consequently the provisions on interim and final payments are on condition that technical reports are submitted and approved.
  Failure to fulfil obligations by the contractor leads to a reduction of payments, application of sanctions, and eventually to the termination of the contract. The contractor is not permitted to subcontract without prior consent, has to replace any personnel that does not comply with the obligation to deliver services of highest professional standards, and has to respect full confidentiality as well as to participate in checks and audits to be performed by the Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The model of the service contract currently used by the Commission refers in more than ten articles to the assessment and quality control of advisory services. The most important clause is related to the definition of the subject of the contract and thereby referring to the technical specifications in the invitation to tender as well as to the tender itself. The contractor is obliged to perform his obligations with the highest professional standards. In order to enforce these major obligations the clause establishes a schedule for interim reports and audits. Consequently the provisions on interim and final payments are on condition that technical reports are submitted and approved.

Failure to fulfil obligations by the contractor leads to a reduction of payments, application of sanctions, and eventually to the termination of the contract. The contractor is not permitted to subcontract without prior consent, has to replace any personnel that does not comply with the obligation to deliver services of highest professional standards, and has to respect full confidentiality as well as to participate in checks and audits to be performed by the Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

| 2. | Management of contracts is the responsibility of the local contract managers within each Directorate General (DG). The decentralised organisation of the contract management has proved to be the most efficient approach as local managers have the information on requirements and conditions at govern the execution of individual contracts.
  As the Honourable Member may already be aware, the Prodi Commission decided to develop a central contracts and contractors database Interactive Contracts Network Database (ICON-DB). The work is progressing well. This will provide central statistics. Pursuant to action 74 of the Commission White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1), the database will also contain details of candidates and tenderers who are in one of the situations described in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation. Centralised and consolidated statistics, broken down by Commission department, will thus be available in due course more rapidly.
  The Commission can however provide central statistics from an analysis of the accounts. The payments made to the five principal international consultancy firms for services (including, but not exclusively, management consultancy) supplied to the Commission amount to around EUR 31 million for 2002.
  Two tables showing the payments made for all the services provided by the five principal consultancy firms to the Commission are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Management of contracts is the responsibility of the local contract managers within each Directorate General (DG). The decentralised organisation of the contract management has proved to be the most efficient approach as local managers have the information on requirements and conditions at govern the execution of individual contracts.

As the Honourable Member may already be aware, the Prodi Commission decided to develop a central contracts and contractors database Interactive Contracts Network Database (ICON-DB). The work is progressing well. This will provide central statistics. Pursuant to action 74 of the Commission White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1), the database will also contain details of candidates and tenderers who are in one of the situations described in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation. Centralised and consolidated statistics, broken down by Commission department, will thus be available in due course more rapidly.

The Commission can however provide central statistics from an analysis of the accounts. The payments made to the five principal international consultancy firms for services (including, but not exclusively, management consultancy) supplied to the Commission amount to around EUR 31 million for 2002.

Two tables showing the payments made for all the services provided by the five principal consultancy firms to the Commission are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

| 3. | Unsatisfactory work is a ‘serious breach of contract’ and therefore an exclusion reason stipulated in Article 93(f) of the financial regulation represents a feature that will be stored in the operational applications of ICON-DB. None of the five firms is mentioned in the Commission's present Early Warning System. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Unsatisfactory work is a ‘serious breach of contract’ and therefore an exclusion reason stipulated in Article 93(f) of the financial regulation represents a feature that will be stored in the operational applications of ICON-DB. None of the five firms is mentioned in the Commission's present Early Warning System.

| 4. | A recovery order means that an authorising department has discovered the existence of a claim against one of the Commission's debtors that is certain, of a fixed amount and due. The recovery order does not necessarily mean the contract was performed unsatisfactorily by the debtor. It may, for example, relate to the recovery of an advance (pre-financing) paid for a service that was originally planned but ultimately abandoned.
  Recovery orders have been issued against:






  — | Coopers and Lybrand (United Kingdom) for EUR 43 892,66, which was paid by offsetting the amount against other claims (order 3240014022 of 1997, offset in 1999); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

A recovery order means that an authorising department has discovered the existence of a claim against one of the Commission's debtors that is certain, of a fixed amount and due. The recovery order does not necessarily mean the contract was performed unsatisfactorily by the debtor. It may, for example, relate to the recovery of an advance (pre-financing) paid for a service that was originally planned but ultimately abandoned.

Recovery orders have been issued against:

—

Coopers and Lybrand (United Kingdom) for EUR 43 892,66, which was paid by offsetting the amount against other claims (order 3240014022 of 1997, offset in 1999);

| — | Deloitte and Touche (Greece) for EUR 26 145,53 (order 3240402821 of 2003), which will be offset; |
| --- | --- |

—

Deloitte and Touche (Greece) for EUR 26 145,53 (order 3240402821 of 2003), which will be offset;

| — | Ernst and Young (United Kingdom) for EUR 103 346,41 (order 3240016239 of 1999), which has been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ernst and Young (United Kingdom) for EUR 103 346,41 (order 3240016239 of 1999), which has been paid.

| 5. | The use of selected management consultants is a way of enlisting the services of specialists who have in-depth expertise and have also probably performed comparable tasks in similar public or private organisations. Their combination of skills enables them to contribute a new and different perspective, which is both useful and necessary for dealing with specific dossiers.
  As a Member of the Budgetary Control Committee of the Parliament, the Honourable Member may be also aware of the tight staffing situation in the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The use of selected management consultants is a way of enlisting the services of specialists who have in-depth expertise and have also probably performed comparable tasks in similar public or private organisations. Their combination of skills enables them to contribute a new and different perspective, which is both useful and necessary for dealing with specific dossiers.

As a Member of the Budgetary Control Committee of the Parliament, the Honourable Member may be also aware of the tight staffing situation in the Commission.

---

(1)  According to the terms of the White Paper (Action 74 Contracts Database) [Part II, cf. COM(2000) 200 final, volume II]: ‘A central database will bring together all contracts and financing agreements concluded by the Commission. It will be a precondition of any proposal to undertake financial commitments that the data related to the envisaged contractor have been entered in the database. The database will contain all relevant information on the object of the contract, the contractor, the beneficiaries (including major indirect beneficiaries) and implementation’.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/8

---

(2004/C 84 E/0008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border investment

Is the Commission of the view that the introduction of the euro has boosted cross-border investment for the participating Member States? Will it update those figures given in previous parliamentary answers to me that showed a sharp increase in cross-border investment in the euro area that was an order of magnitude greater than the increase for the EU members not participating in the euro? Will it also give the figures individually for the five largest Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Data on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows for EU-15, split between Eurozone and EU-15/non-Eurozone countries, together with shares of each aggregate in the total EU-15 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Data for the Eurozone are available as from 1997. Annual rates of growth are also shown (First set of tables).

Data for the five bigger Member States in terms of FDI inflows, the share of the United Kingdom in EU 15 and annual growth rates are also given (Second set of tables).

Available data for Foreign Direct Investment indicate that the introduction of the euro had a favourable effect on cross-border investment for the participating Member States.

FDI data compiled by Eurostat show a much larger increase of FDI inflows in 1999 and 2000 for the euro area than for other Member States. This can be interpreted as an evidence of a positive impact of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) on cross-border direct investment. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that EMU is only one of the factors that have affected euro-area FDI flows in recent years. In particular, FDI fluctuations have been clearly dominated by cyclical factors in the past two years. In 2001, the slowdown in merger activity and depressed economic conditions entailed a sharp drop in FDI inflows for both the euro area and other Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/9

---

(2004/C 84 E/0009)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1595/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border payments in euro

With reference to written question P-0327/03 (1) of 31 January 2003, the Commission's answer to which was unclear, the questioner once again seeks clarification as to whether an electronic card which serves as both a credit card and a debit card in Portugal can only be used as a credit card in the other euro countries.

More precisely, can a card which is used to withdraw cash from ATMs free of charge in Portugal be used for the same purpose in the other countries in the euro zone or might the withdrawal, without prior warning, be considered as a cash advance with the charges that entails?

Similarly, can the Commission say what it means by ‘deferred debit cards’ mentioned in point 23 of Commission Decision 2002/914/EC (2) of 24 July 2002 and what the advantages are for consumers?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payment in euro (3), since 1 July 2002 the cost for cardholders withdrawing euro cash at automated teller machines (ATMs) should be the same, regardless of whether the ATM is located in the country where the card is issued or in another Member State.

In Article 3 of the Regulation, the principle of equality of charges applies to ‘corresponding payments’.

For payment cards combining both a debit and a credit function (so-called ‘multi-functional cards’) (4), this means the following:

| — | when the debit function is used for euro cash withdrawals outside the country of issuance of the card in the Union, any charges applied should be the same as when the same function is used in euro cash withdrawals within the country of issuance of the card (5); |
| --- | --- |

—

when the debit function is used for euro cash withdrawals outside the country of issuance of the card in the Union, any charges applied should be the same as when the same function is used in euro cash withdrawals within the country of issuance of the card (5);

| — | similarly, when the credit function (6) is used, the charges should be the same as for the same function in the country of issuance. |
| --- | --- |

—

similarly, when the credit function (6) is used, the charges should be the same as for the same function in the country of issuance.

The case referred to by the Honourable Member relates to a multi-functional card issued in Portugal.

On the basis of information provided by several entities, the Commission has the following understanding of the facts:

| — | Holders of such multi-functional cards have a choice between withdrawing money at ATMs using the debit function (immediate debit on the account, no charge) or the credit function (cash advance, meaning deferred debit on the account and charges of 4 % in average) as long as the cards are used in Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Holders of such multi-functional cards have a choice between withdrawing money at ATMs using the debit function (immediate debit on the account, no charge) or the credit function (cash advance, meaning deferred debit on the account and charges of 4 % in average) as long as the cards are used in Portugal.

| — | When those multi-functional cards issued in Portugal are used in other Member States, the debit function is not available and only the credit function can be used to withdraw money at ATMs. The charges in that case are the same as compared to the use of the credit function in Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

—

When those multi-functional cards issued in Portugal are used in other Member States, the debit function is not available and only the credit function can be used to withdraw money at ATMs. The charges in that case are the same as compared to the use of the credit function in Portugal.

The Commission draws the following conclusions:

| — | As regards cash withdrawals using the credit function, the charges are the same for cross-border and national transactions, in conformity with the notion of ‘corresponding payments’. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards cash withdrawals using the credit function, the charges are the same for cross-border and national transactions, in conformity with the notion of ‘corresponding payments’.

| — | Cash withdrawals are possible on a cross-border basis. However, the debit function cannot be used outside Portugal. Multi-functional cards issued in Portugal are therefore not fully usable in other Member States at the same conditions as in Portugal. In particular, it can be concluded that the service of cash withdrawals in euros is not available at the same conditions inside and outside Portugal. This difference in available options does not seem, prima facie, to respect the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cash withdrawals are possible on a cross-border basis. However, the debit function cannot be used outside Portugal. Multi-functional cards issued in Portugal are therefore not fully usable in other Member States at the same conditions as in Portugal. In particular, it can be concluded that the service of cash withdrawals in euros is not available at the same conditions inside and outside Portugal. This difference in available options does not seem, prima facie, to respect the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001.

According to information provided by Portuguese banks, in addition to payment cards combining both the debit and the credit function, as described above, there are also ‘pure’ debit cards (only carrying the immediate debit function), which allow cardholders to withdraw euro cash in Portugal and in other Member States free of charge. The Commission will endeavour to obtain data from the Portuguese authorities on the relative use in the market of multi-functional cards as compared to pure debit cards to evaluate the importance of the problem.

It should also be noted that, according to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, cardholders shall be supplied with prior information on the charges levied for cross-border payments as well as for national payments. In addition, Commission Recommendation 97/489/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder (7) establishes in Article 3, §3, that the terms of the contract between a cardholder and his bank shall at least include ‘a description of the electronic payment instrument (...), and the way in which it can be used, including the financial limits applied, if any’. Cardholders using multi-functional cards outside Portugal should therefore be informed about the services provided and their price.

The Commission will pursue the contacts undertaken with Portuguese authorities in order to determine whether Regulation (CE) No 2560/2001 is being properly implemented by Portuguese banks, including with respect to prior information requirements.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 354.

(2)  OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(4)  In Europe, the credit function is rather a deferred debit, meaning that the holder may charge his account up to an authorised limit. A deferred debit card enables the cardholder to make purchases but does not offer extended credit, the full amount of the debt incurred having to be settled at the end of a specified period. When such cards are used to withdraw cash (so-called ‘cash advance’), the funds are debited from the cardholder's account at the end of the specified period.

(5)  When the debit function of a card is used in cash withdrawals, the funds are immediately debited from the cardholder's account.

(6)  When the credit function of a card is used in cash withdrawals, the funds are debited from the cardholder's account at the end of a specified period.

(7)  OJ L 208, 2.8.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/10

---

(2004/C 84 E/0010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Fight against the abuse of human beings and the sexual abuse of children

A major operation recently conducted in Italy by the carabinieri and the judiciary has uncovered a disturbing trafficking-ring set up by a group of Ukrainians and dealing in prostitutes and children, some of whom were even to be used for paedophilia and in organ transplants, while a leading lawyer in Lecce has alleged the existence of sex tourism activities.

Can the Commission provide any information on the initiatives provided for under Joint Action 97/154/JAI concerning trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children?

What data can it furnish on the results of the programmes Daphne 2000-2003 and STOP (1996-2000)?

Does it not consider that focussing solely on Objective 5 of the AGIS 2003 programme for developing multidisciplinary strategies in the areas referred to above, for which a meagre EUR 800 000 has been allocated, in fact constitutes a ‘lowering of guard’ in the face of phenomena such as paedophilia and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation or organ transplants, when such phenomena are actually on the increase, not least as a result of the complete absence of any regulation of the Internet?

Will it reinject greater vigour and discipline into its commitment to combat the abuse of human beings and the sexual abuse of children, and promote a close investigation in all the countries with which the EU has relations of one form or another, perhaps with a view to imposing penalties on them or even suspending the accession processes in which they are involved?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

On the basis of the Maastricht Treaty the Council adopted in February 1997 a Joint Action concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children (97/154/JHA). Through the Joint Action the Member States undertook to review their existing laws with a view to providing that trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children were criminal offences.

While some progress has been noted in the Member States' policies and legislation, the then legal framework made it difficult to develop an efficient judicial and law enforcement co-operation in this area. This is why the Commission in its Communication of 21 December 2000 to the Council and the Parliament on combating trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography identified a need for further legislative action. On the basis of proposals of the Commission (1), the Council, on 19 July 2002, adopted the Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings and, on 15 October 2002, reached political agreement on the Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This act shall be adopted once parliamentary reservations of some Member States will have been lifted.

Member States have to take the necessary measures to comply with the Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings before 1 August 2004. The Council will, by 1 August 2005 at the latest, assess the extent to which Member States have taken these measures. In this context, the Commission will have to transmit previously a written report to the Council based on information provided by Member States. A similar procedure is foreseen with regard to the implementation of the Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Both framework decisions become part of the Union acquis and have to be implemented by Candidate Countries as well. Furthermore, the Brussels Declaration forms the Commission's agenda for combating trafficking in human beings in the near future. The setting up of an experts group on trafficking in human beings by the Commission (2) and regular workshops on trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation in the framework of the Union Forum for the Prevention of Organised Crime underline the Commission's commitment to continuously combat these forms of crime.

Daphne Programme

The objectives of the Daphne programme (2000-2003) are to combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women. Trafficking in human beings, whether for the purpose of sexual exploitation or any other exploitation by forced labour, is part of the scope of the programme and has been the subject of several funded projects so far. These projects have been implemented in many European countries and a number of them included also partners from Central and Eastern European countries, from which the victims are originating. The report from the Commission on the Daphne programme (3) contains an in-depth analysis of the programme at mid-term. By the end of 2003, the Commission will have carried out a comprehensive impact analysis of the entire programme.

STOP Programme and AGIS Programme

On 29 November 1996, the Council adopted an incentive and exchange programme for persons responsible for combating trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children (STOP) to support measures such as training, exchange programmes, organisation of multidisciplinary meetings and seminars, studies and research as well as dissemination of information. A second phase of the programme was established for the period from 2001 to 2002 paying particular attention to the involvement of the applicant countries.

Tables containing more detailed information concerning the STOP and STOP II programmes are sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat.

On 22 July 2002, the Council adopted the AGIS framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. AGIS is also foreseen, among other issues, for the financial support of projects aimed at combating trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. Such projects, however, might appear under different objectives of the annual programmes (training of police and magistrates, preventive actions towards third countries, studies and systems for the exchange of information and collection of statistics in this particular area). Therefore, the financial support for such projects in 2003 is not strictly limited to EUR 800 000. The exact amount will be determined taking into account the nature and quality of all applications received.

---

(1)  OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.

(2)  OJ L 79, 26.3.2003.

(3)  COM(2002) 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/12

---

(2004/C 84 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1940/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Stamp duty exemption scheme

In approving the UK stamp duty exemption scheme for disadvantaged areas, as announced in DN; PP/03/8.9 dated 21 January 2003, can the Commission indicate why it regards wards containing more than one fifth of the population of the UK as ‘small areas of severe deprivation’ and what the reporting obligations and the timescale are for these reports from the UK authorities on the input of the scheme on the physical regeneration of the eligible areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/12

---

(2004/C 84 E/0012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1941/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Stamp duty exemption scheme

| 1. | Will the Commission publish the letter dated 21 December 2001 from the UK authorities and registered by the Commission on 9 January 2002? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission publish the letter dated 21 December 2001 from the UK authorities and registered by the Commission on 9 January 2002?

| 2. | What submissions and evidence did the UK authorities put forward in response to the doubts expressed by the Commission and recorded in the Official Journal of 27 April 2002 about whether the list of ‘designated disadvantaged areas’ would in effect lead to a significant widening of the UK regional aid map? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the sale of non-residential property and the creation of new leases for such property constitutes in all circumstances ‘initial investment’ as defined in the guidelines? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the aid intensity of the scheme would exceed 4 % What allayed the Commission's doubts about the restrictions of aid in the deprived urban area guidelines to small companies only and solely to beneficiaries who carried on their principal economic activity in deprived urban areas and reserved at least 20 % of the new jobs created for persons resident in the deprived area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What submissions and evidence did the UK authorities put forward in response to the doubts expressed by the Commission and recorded in the Official Journal of 27 April 2002 about whether the list of ‘designated disadvantaged areas’ would in effect lead to a significant widening of the UK regional aid map? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the sale of non-residential property and the creation of new leases for such property constitutes in all circumstances ‘initial investment’ as defined in the guidelines? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the aid intensity of the scheme would exceed 4 % What allayed the Commission's doubts about the restrictions of aid in the deprived urban area guidelines to small companies only and solely to beneficiaries who carried on their principal economic activity in deprived urban areas and reserved at least 20 % of the new jobs created for persons resident in the deprived area?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1940/03 and E-1941/03

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that its Decision on the aid scheme entitled: ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1). The Commission Decision contains a detailed response to the two written questions mentioned above. The Commission would, therefore, like to refer to its Decision on the matter.

Concerning the notification of the scheme, which was sent by the British authorities on 21 December 2001, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (2) does not provide for the publication of notifications from the Member States in the Official Journal of the European Union. A description of the facts contained in the notification is to be found, in particular, in Section II (description of the aid) of Commission decision ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas.’

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

(2)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/13

---

(2004/C 84 E/0013)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1974/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Rehabilitation of earthquake victims in Attica

There are serious social problems in the areas of Attica affected by the earthquakes of 1999, in particular housing and unemployment. The National Action Plan for social integration incorporates retraining schemes to promote the employment of earthquake victims who were unemployed or lost their jobs owing to the damage caused by the 1999 earthquake. Moreover, unemployed earthquake victims were entitled to places on the new jobs programme with higher benefit.

What is the take-up rate for the above programmes and how effective have the measures been? Does the Commission know how many participants managed to obtain employment after training? Is it satisfied with the policy pursued by the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

A National Action Plan for Social Integration is drawn up every two years by each Member State under the open method of coordination. The objective is to set out an overall strategy embracing all measures aimed at minimising social exclusion and promoting the integration of disadvantaged people.

An Action Plan therefore does not constitute a programme in the Structural Funds sense and is not part-financed by the European Union, although specific activities under it may be part-financed if they are included in a Community Support Framework (CSF) currently being implemented.

Vocational training and employment assistance measures for victims of the 1999 Athens earthquake part-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) were included in the ‘Social Exclusion’ programme under the second Community Support Framework (CSF II) 1994-1999. This programme has been wound up with a take-up rate of 97,77 %.

An ex-post evaluation is now being carried out. This will reveal whether the objectives laid down have been achieved and how effective the measures financed have been.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member as soon as the results of this evaluation are available.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/14

---

(2004/C 84 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2103/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border investment

Does the Commission consider that the introduction of the euro has boosted cross-border investment for the participating states? Could the Commission also give the figures for Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

As stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honorourable Member's written question E-1350/03 (1), available data for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) indicate that the introduction of the euro has had a favourable effect on cross-border investment for the participating countries. FDI data compiled by Eurostat show a much larger increase of FDI inflows in 1999 and 2000 for the euro area than for other Member States. This can be interpreted as an evidence of a positive impact of the Economic and Monetary Union on cross-border direct investment. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that EMU is only one of the factors that have affected euro-area FDI flows in recent years. In 2001, the slowdown in merger activity and depressed economic conditions entailed a sharp drop in FDI inflows for both the euro-area and other Member States.

The figures for foreign direct investmen (2) for Sweden are as follows:

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 1999 (3) | 2000 | 2001 |
| From EU-15 to Sweden | 45 185 | 12 061 | 8 646 |
| From eurozone to Sweden | 8 839 | 8 496 | 7 090 |
| From non-eurozone to Sweden | 36 346 | 3 565 | 1 556 |
| From extra EU 15 to Sweden | 5 370 | 8 280 | 2 715 |

(million euros)

1999 (3)

2000

2001

From EU-15 to Sweden

45 185

12 061

8 646

From eurozone to Sweden

8 839

8 496

7 090

From non-eurozone to Sweden

36 346

3 565

1 556

From extra EU 15 to Sweden

5 370

8 280

2 715

---

(1)  See page 8.

(2)  Excludes reinvested earnings.

(3)  The merger between Astra and Zeneca and Ford's acquisition of Volvo Personvagnar boosted FDI inflow to Sweden by about EUR 34 062 million (SEK 300 billion) in 1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/14

---

(2004/C 84 E/0015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2141/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   German road tolls

Germany is introducing a motorway toll of SEK 11,45 per ten kilometres for heavy goods vehicles from 1 September 2003. This toll will affect Sweden and Denmark in that it puts them in a worse competitive position than other European countries.

The toll is obviously contrary to EU competition rules. What steps will the Commission take to find a solution to this problem?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/15

---

(2004/C 84 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2243/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Distortions of competition by German goods-vehicle toll

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that the basis of assessment for the goods-vehicle toll to be introduced at the end of August in Germany is in fact commensurate with the necessary volume of investment in road building? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that the basis of assessment for the goods-vehicle toll to be introduced at the end of August in Germany is in fact commensurate with the necessary volume of investment in road building?

| 2. | How does the Commission react to the distortions of competition in the German transport industry (and other branches of the economy) that will result from the significant increase in transport costs caused by this new goods-vehicle toll? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the Commission react to the distortions of competition in the German transport industry (and other branches of the economy) that will result from the significant increase in transport costs caused by this new goods-vehicle toll?

| 3. | Does the Commission stand by its rejection of the Federal Government's intention to offset the impact of the goods-vehicle toll on German transport undertakings by way of a credit against the petroleum tax? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission stand by its rejection of the Federal Government's intention to offset the impact of the goods-vehicle toll on German transport undertakings by way of a credit against the petroleum tax?

| 4. | Does the Commission anticipate any problems with an immediate reduction in the motor-vehicle tax levied on goods-vehicles in Germany to the minimum EU tax rate? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission anticipate any problems with an immediate reduction in the motor-vehicle tax levied on goods-vehicles in Germany to the minimum EU tax rate?

| 5. | Does the Commission expect the new toll arrangements to put non-German transport undertakings transiting through Germany at a disadvantage? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission expect the new toll arrangements to put non-German transport undertakings transiting through Germany at a disadvantage?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2141/03 and P-2243/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Germany has notified to the Commission its intention to introduce a toll reimbursement system accompanied by the introduction of a mileage-based motorway user charge for heavy goods vehicles. In this context, the attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2003 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/15

---

(2004/C 84 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2195/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Counterfeiting and piracy

It has been forecast that counterfeiting and piracy will cost EU companies with international activities between EUR 400 and EUR 800 million per annum in the internal market and EUR 2 000 million outside it. In addition, Member States suffer enormous loss of revenue from the smuggling of excised goods. Can the Council give assurances that cooperation to deal with this problem will be discussed at forthcoming meetings of Justice and Home Affairs and Internal Market Ministers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

In February 2003, the Council and the European Parliament had before them a proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2003/0024(COD)).

This proposal is currently being examined in detail within the Council bodies pending the opinion of the European Parliament at first reading (scheduled for November 2003). The Council can ensure you that it will continue to accord this proposal the priority it deserves.

In this context, it should be noted that on 22 July 2003 the Council also adopted a Regulation concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (1). The Regulation forms part of the more general framework of cooperation and mutual assistance between customs administrations at Community level.

---

(1)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/16

---

(2004/C 84 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Progress on asylum in Thessaloniki

Will the Council please give its view on the progress made on the issue of asylum at the Thessaloniki Summit, particularly with regard to UK proposals to create ‘zones of protection’ to process asylum applications on or close to the borders of refugee producing countries?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/16

---

(2004/C 84 E/0019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Keeping new refugees away from EU territory by building reception camps in the future Member States or further afield

| 1. | Can the Council confirm that, even before the decision was taken on 20 June 2003 at Porto Carras (near Thessaloniki) to permit some EU Member States by way of an experiment to accommodate asylum seekers outside EU territory, work had already begun to connect electricity, water mains ssand drainage to 13 barracks at the former army base in the village of Trstenik, Croatia? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Council confirm that, even before the decision was taken on 20 June 2003 at Porto Carras (near Thessaloniki) to permit some EU Member States by way of an experiment to accommodate asylum seekers outside EU territory, work had already begun to connect electricity, water mains ssand drainage to 13 barracks at the former army base in the village of Trstenik, Croatia?

| 2. | Does the Council consider that the housing in Trstenik will remain confined to the temporary accommodation of 800 asylum seekers wishing to settle in the UK, and will the people taken there exclusively comprise people from Balkan countries applying for asylum at UK ports or airports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Council consider that the housing in Trstenik will remain confined to the temporary accommodation of 800 asylum seekers wishing to settle in the UK, and will the people taken there exclusively comprise people from Balkan countries applying for asylum at UK ports or airports?

| 3. | Do similar agreements exist, concluded by the EU or its individual Member States, for the construction of refugee camps in Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania, and are there plans for camps further away from EU territory in a ring around the refugees' countries of origin in Southwestern and North-Eastern Africa? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do similar agreements exist, concluded by the EU or its individual Member States, for the construction of refugee camps in Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania, and are there plans for camps further away from EU territory in a ring around the refugees' countries of origin in Southwestern and North-Eastern Africa?

| 4. | Is the intention to keep the refugees permanently outside EU territory? Does that mean that these reception camps will be moved, together with their occupants, when Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia join the EU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the intention to keep the refugees permanently outside EU territory? Does that mean that these reception camps will be moved, together with their occupants, when Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia join the EU?

| 5. | How will it be possible to prevent traffickers in human beings from continuing to enrich themselves by smuggling these people from these camps into the EU by dangerous means? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How will it be possible to prevent traffickers in human beings from continuing to enrich themselves by smuggling these people from these camps into the EU by dangerous means?

| 6. | How is this state of affairs to be reconciled with the European Convention on the protection of Human Rights (Council of Europe) and the 1951 Refugee Convention? Does the Council consider that these conventions will have to be amended so that, on the basis of agreements with states which are not (yet) EU Member States, asylum seekers can be denied the right to await the outcome of their asylum applications on EU territory? |
| --- | --- |

6.

How is this state of affairs to be reconciled with the European Convention on the protection of Human Rights (Council of Europe) and the 1951 Refugee Convention? Does the Council consider that these conventions will have to be amended so that, on the basis of agreements with states which are not (yet) EU Member States, asylum seekers can be denied the right to await the outcome of their asylum applications on EU territory?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2210/03 and E-2258/03

(8 March 2004)

The European Council, meeting in Thessaloniki on 19 and 20 June 2003, invited the Commission to explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly and managed entry into the EU for persons in need of international protection, and to examine ways and means to enhance the protection capacity of regions of origin with a view to presenting to the Council, before June 2004, a comprehensive report suggesting measures to be taken, including legal implications.

As part of this process, the European Council noted that a number of Member States were planning to explore ways of providing better protection for the refugees in their region of origin, in conjunction with the UNHCR. It considered that this work should be carried out in full partnership with the countries concerned on the basis of recommendations from the UNHCR.

No agreement whatsoever has been concluded between the Council and acceding countries or third countries on this matter. As regards measures which may have been taken by individual Member States, the Council invites the Honourable Members to address themselves directly to those Member States.

In the meantime, the Council is focusing its work on the proposals for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. It is recalled that the European Council also stressed that it was vital to ensure the adoption of both proposals before the end of 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/17

---

(2004/C 84 E/0020)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2302/03

by Miguel Martínez Martínez (PSE) to the Council

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Murder of the young Spanish voluntary worker Ana Isabel Sánchez Torralba in Equatorial Guinea

Voluntary workers in Equatorial Guinea have now confirmed the sad news of the death of a young Spanish woman in that country, who was killed in dramatic circumstances by Equatorial Guinean soldiers. Ana Isabel Sánchez Torralba was 22 years old, came from Ocaña in Castilla-La Mancha and had been in Africa for only a few days generously contributing to the solidarity-based work of the Escolapian Missionaries. She was travelling towards the town of Aconibe in a civilian bus with other citizens and a couple of fellow missionaries when the vehicle was inexplicably shot at by members of the country's armed forces on passing a checkpoint, with fatal consequences.

This serious incident leads me, as a citizen of the same country as the young murder victim who shares the grief and indignation of her family and friends, to put the following questions to the Council for written answer:

| — | Is the Council aware of the above facts, or will it seek the relevant information? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Council aware of the above facts, or will it seek the relevant information?

| — | Now that the murder of this exemplary young European has been confirmed, will the Council respond by demanding that the Equatorial Guinean authorities take appropriate action against those responsible? |
| --- | --- |

—

Now that the murder of this exemplary young European has been confirmed, will the Council respond by demanding that the Equatorial Guinean authorities take appropriate action against those responsible?

| — | Does the Council consider it appropriate to take steps within the framework of the Partnership Agreement with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, to which Equatorial Guinea is a signatory alongside the European Union, so that those governing that country with such complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law finally receive the sanctions laid down in the above Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Council consider it appropriate to take steps within the framework of the Partnership Agreement with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, to which Equatorial Guinea is a signatory alongside the European Union, so that those governing that country with such complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law finally receive the sanctions laid down in the above Treaty?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council takes note of the information concerning the murder of the Spanish citizen Ana Isabel Sánchez Torralba in Equatorial Guinea. The Council regrets all acts of violence and crimes; these should be addressed not only in relation to events affecting EU citizens, but also in general terms.

The EU is deeply concerned at the deterioration in the internal political situation in Equatorial Guinea as regards human rights and the democratisation process. Following last year's elections (December 2002) the EU expressed its concern at the political development of the country and in particular at the increase in violations of human rights. The EU urged the government and the political opposition to hold an all-inclusive political dialogue on the process of democratisation and on the establishment of guarantees for respect of human rights. It will continue to do so and will pursue any relevant action within the framework of its contacts with the competent authorities to prevent and clear up situations such as the one described by the Honourable Member in his question.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/18

---

(2004/C 84 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2373/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Assessment of the COM in tobacco

Knowing that:

| — | Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 (1) amended Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (2) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco to read ‘Before 1 April 2002, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 (1) amended Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (2) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco to read ‘Before 1 April 2002, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco’;

| — | In February 2002 the Commission, by means of a tendering procedure, entrusted the company Cogea with the task of assessing the COM in tobacco and the contract, which should have come to an end by October 2002, is still in force; |
| --- | --- |

—

In February 2002 the Commission, by means of a tendering procedure, entrusted the company Cogea with the task of assessing the COM in tobacco and the contract, which should have come to an end by October 2002, is still in force;

| — | Cogea submitted a complete draft of the commissioned document, although not until December 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cogea submitted a complete draft of the commissioned document, although not until December 2002.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what the reasons are for the serious delay in forwarding the documents to Parliament compared with the deadline laid down and when it expects to submit the final document; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what the reasons are for the serious delay in forwarding the documents to Parliament compared with the deadline laid down and when it expects to submit the final document;

| 2. | whether the Commission considers it has fulfilled the provisions of the regulation by sending its own document dated 8 November 2002 and, if so, why it requested a further study from an outside consultant, to which it attaches great importance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the Commission considers it has fulfilled the provisions of the regulation by sending its own document dated 8 November 2002 and, if so, why it requested a further study from an outside consultant, to which it attaches great importance;

| 3. | what competence and experience Cogea has in the tobacco sector which led to its being awarded the contract, and what the contract itself was worth; |
| --- | --- |

3.

what competence and experience Cogea has in the tobacco sector which led to its being awarded the contract, and what the contract itself was worth;

| 4. | who is on the steering committee monitoring Cogea's work and whether it is true that the members include officials in DG-AGRI's Tobacco Unit since, according to the call to tender, their work too is being assessed; whether it is true that the committee, as well as checking that Cogea's work was proceeding in accordance with the deadline and specifications laid down, also requested significant amendments to the text, thereby reducing the external assessor's degree of autonomy; |
| --- | --- |

4.

who is on the steering committee monitoring Cogea's work and whether it is true that the members include officials in DG-AGRI's Tobacco Unit since, according to the call to tender, their work too is being assessed; whether it is true that the committee, as well as checking that Cogea's work was proceeding in accordance with the deadline and specifications laid down, also requested significant amendments to the text, thereby reducing the external assessor's degree of autonomy;

| 5. | furthermore, pending delivery of a copy of the final document and in view of the limited time available, whether it can forward to Parliament the internal documents of the steering committee and the Cogea draft, delivered in December 2002, and subsequent amendments? |
| --- | --- |

5.

furthermore, pending delivery of a copy of the final document and in view of the limited time available, whether it can forward to Parliament the internal documents of the steering committee and the Cogea draft, delivered in December 2002, and subsequent amendments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member indicates, a Commission report to Parliament and the Council was published on 6 November 2002 under the number SEC(2002) 1183. This was a factual report drawn up by Commission officials. It met the requirement of the Regulation in question for a report on functioning of the common market organisation (CMO) for raw tobacco. In parallel the Commission in February 2002 commissioned an assessment of the raw tobacco CMO from the firm COGEA, which submitted a draft report in December.

Here are the answers to the Honourable Member's questions, following his numbering.

COGEA's December 2002 report was not accepted by the steering group for this assessment exercise. Two revised versions were presented, the first on 1 April 2003 and the second on 1 July.

One of the main improvements between these versions was inclusion of the 2001 crop data. This raised from two to three years the period under review since reform of the CMO in 1998. The data in question was sent to COGEA as soon as it was available at the end of 2002. Its inclusion was not in the original specification but was decided on by agreement between the contractor and the steering group so that the analysis could be substantively improved.

The version of 1 July is the final one, accepted as such by an official note of 25 July. Payment for the report and circulation of it are in hand. Parliament will of course be receiving a copy. The steering group intends to publish it on the Internet, probably this month.

The Commission report to Parliament and the Council to which the Honourable Member refers is that published on 6 November 2002 under the number SEC(2002) 1183. As stated above it meets the regulatory requirement for a report on functioning of the raw tobacco CMO. It is essentially factual in nature.

The assessment entrusted to COGEA has other purposes beyond functioning of the market. The specification required an assessment covering growers' incomes, impact on the local economy and the repercussions of the CMO on health and the environment. It has been carried out under the Commission's and DG AGRI's assessment policy and the CMOs are being studied in this way one after the other. The Honourable Member is asked, if he wishes more information, to refer to the assessment specification, a copy of which is being sent direct to him and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Under the terms of the specification three sets of criteria — for exclusion, shortlisting and assignment — had to be applied in order to choose a contractor. To be shortlisted tenderers had to demonstrate previous experience in public policy assessment and economic and agricultural analysis. Experience in the tobacco sector was a plus but not a prerequisite. The assignment criteria were: quality of the tender (understanding of the nature of the task and its context, structuring of the team's work, allocation of working time and responsibilities between team members, composition of team), technical value of the tender (strategy proposed for completion of the task, methodological and technical proposals for dealing with the five fields of assessment stipulated) and price.

A selection committee of seven persons examined the tenders and chose that of COGEA as most financially advantageous given the specification criteria. The Committee members came from the Directorates-General for the Budget and for Health and Consumer Protection and from DG-AGRI (Units for tobacco, Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and Evaluation). The assignment procedure was given a favourable opinion by the Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts and by DG Budget before the contract was signed.

The contract was assigned to COGEA, which proposed a total of 455 working days and a total cost of EUR 310 250. For more detailed information the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the contract award notice published in Official Journal of the European Union S 89 of 8 May 2002 under the number 69716-2002 (3).

The Tobacco Assessment Steering Group consists of representatives from various Commission Directorates-General: Budget (CAP and Evaluation Units), Competition, Economic and Financial Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection and lastly Agriculture with representatives from the following Units: Specialised Crops (manager of tobacco CMO), Studies and Overall Approach, FADN, Budget, Audit and Control, Evaluation. The group is chaired and its secretariat provided by DG AGRI's Evaluation Unit, which forms part of a support service Directorate that is independent of the market management Units. Steering groups bring together the people who have to deal with the various aspects of a dossier, each contributing his or her own expertise and observations to its work. The Unit responsible for managing the tobacco CMO was given representation on the steering group because of its technical knowledge of the dossier and the market data that it could supply for analytical purposes. It was however in a minority in the steering group. Group diversity allows a multiplicity of opinions to be voiced and promotes independence on the contractor's part. The group does not necessarily share the opinions put forward by the consultant and the assessment report cannot be held to reflect any views other than those of its author.

For further information on steering methods for DG AGRI market assessment studies the Honourable Member is referred to the guide published at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/ guide/cmo_en.pdf).

As mentioned above the December report was not accepted by the steering group, which asked for a number of additional analyses. The final version received on 1 July was officially accepted on 25 July. As soon as the internal registration and circulation procedures are completed Parliament will receive a copy. The steering group will also be asking for the report to be published on the Internet. It should be available this month.

Accordingly there no longer appears to be any point in transmitting the steering group's internal documents and an incomplete version of the report, which would make no contribution to the clarity of discussion.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

(3)  Website http://ted.publications.eu.int

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/20

---

(2004/C 84 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since 1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003. Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to death.

Does the Council believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where they might be put to death?

What measures does the Council intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is referred to the joint reply given by the Council to Questions P-3822/02 and E-3843/02. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot intervene in actual asylum application cases in the Member States.

The Council can, however, inform the Honourable Member that in the light of the latest information available to it, Mr Al Sahri was released conditionally on 13 October this year.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/21

---

(2004/C 84 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Quota for sugar production in the autonomous region of the Azores

The Azorean agricultural company Sinaga SA, which produces beet sugar in the outermost region of the Azores, is experiencing problems owing to the growing difficulties being encountered with the reduction in the production quota being made at administrative level. The Treaty concerning Portugal's accession to the European Union set sugar production for the Azores at 20 000 tonnes (quotas A + B), for either a beet processing undertaking or a refinery, stipulating that the remaining amount would be ‘up to a quantity limit expressed in white sugar equal to the difference between the actual production achieved within the framework of quotas A and Β and 20 000 tonnes’.

However, the Azores were removed from this scheme under Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 (1), when they lost the right to process 20 000 tonnes of sugar and instead produced only 10 000 tonnes. Now, according to Sinaga, the Commission is again seeking by administrative means to reduce the refining of white sugar, which is to be set at 6 500 tonnes/year in the autonomous region of the Azores, even though the production of sugar from beet is not sufficient to reach the limit of 10 000 tonnes of white sugar, as defined under Poseima, a situation which would threaten the company's viability. It might also be pointed out that Sinaga purchases raw sugar from Germany (C quota sugar).

The Commission:

| 1. | What measures will it take to guarantee Sinaga's continuing operation, given its importance for the development of the outermost region of the Azores? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures will it take to guarantee Sinaga's continuing operation, given its importance for the development of the outermost region of the Azores?

| 2. | Will recognition be given to the right of the autonomous region of the Azores to produce white sugar up to an amount of 10 000 tonnes/year, under the conditions laid down under Poseima, and will it therefore be authorised to import a further 2 500 tonnes of raw sugar this year, given that beet production will amount to only around 1 000 tonnes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will recognition be given to the right of the autonomous region of the Azores to produce white sugar up to an amount of 10 000 tonnes/year, under the conditions laid down under Poseima, and will it therefore be authorised to import a further 2 500 tonnes of raw sugar this year, given that beet production will amount to only around 1 000 tonnes?

| 3. | Will it be possible for the autonomous region of the Azores to sell its production on traditional markets, i.e. to export around 4 000 tonnes of white sugar? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will it be possible for the autonomous region of the Azores to sell its production on traditional markets, i.e. to export around 4 000 tonnes of white sugar?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

| 1. | The Commission takes the view that the survival of the sugar industry is important for the agricultural economy of the Azores. Beet production is traditional in the Azores and the existence of beet processing facilities is a requirement for it to be marketed.
  Recognising this, the Commission, whether by taking action on its own or proposing specific measures to the Council, has acted to ensure the continued existence of beet and sugar production in the Azores.
  Over the last few years the Commission has taken the following action:






  — | in 1997 it increased the aid for Sinaga for processing Azorean beet into sugar from EUR 100 to EUR 270/tonne; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Commission takes the view that the survival of the sugar industry is important for the agricultural economy of the Azores. Beet production is traditional in the Azores and the existence of beet processing facilities is a requirement for it to be marketed.

Recognising this, the Commission, whether by taking action on its own or proposing specific measures to the Council, has acted to ensure the continued existence of beet and sugar production in the Azores.

Over the last few years the Commission has taken the following action:

—

in 1997 it increased the aid for Sinaga for processing Azorean beet into sugar from EUR 100 to EUR 270/tonne;

| — | in 2000 it proposed to the Council a 66 % increase in the aid for land under sugar beet from EUR 500 to EUR 800/hectare. The Council adopted the Commission's proposal in Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2000 it proposed to the Council a 66 % increase in the aid for land under sugar beet from EUR 500 to EUR 800/hectare. The Council adopted the Commission's proposal in Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 (2).

| 2. | The Commission encourages the sugar sector in the Azores by means of measures that are quite exceptional compared with the mechanisms applied in the rest of the Community under the common market organisation for sugar. In particular, beet growers and the Azorean sugar company are allowed to produce up to 9 953 tonnes of sugar per year from Azorean beet, and the sugar company is allowed to refine raw beet sugar purchased with a refund or on the world market under the specific supply arrangements, within the limits of the consumption needs of the Azores, which are currently estimated at 6 500 tonnes per year.
  The Commission deeply regrets the fact that, despite its efforts in the sector, the production of sugar from Azorean beet was only 700 tonnes in 2002. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission encourages the sugar sector in the Azores by means of measures that are quite exceptional compared with the mechanisms applied in the rest of the Community under the common market organisation for sugar. In particular, beet growers and the Azorean sugar company are allowed to produce up to 9 953 tonnes of sugar per year from Azorean beet, and the sugar company is allowed to refine raw beet sugar purchased with a refund or on the world market under the specific supply arrangements, within the limits of the consumption needs of the Azores, which are currently estimated at 6 500 tonnes per year.

The Commission deeply regrets the fact that, despite its efforts in the sector, the production of sugar from Azorean beet was only 700 tonnes in 2002.

| 3. | Sugar produced from Azorean beet may be marketed freely on markets outside the Azores.
  By contrast, sugar refined in the Azores, for which Sinaga is supplied under the specific supply arrangements, is intended to meet the requirements of the Azores themselves and may not be exported or shipped from the Azores, with the exception of traditional quantities. The Court of justice recently ruled on the concept of ‘traditional quantities’ in case C-282/00. It confirmed the correctness of the Commission's approach in considering traditional shipments or exports to be the average trade flows over the three years preceding the entry into force of the Poseima regime in 1992, i.e. 1989, 1990 and 1991. The Court of Justice ruled that the shipments had to be ‘ongoing, regular and significant’ ... ‘at the time that the Poseima Programme was implemented’ and that ‘Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those requirements’.
  As regards the future development of the Community sugar sector, in the last quarter of 2003 the Commission will present a communication on the reform of the common market organisation for the sector. In its initiatives, the Commission will take account of the special situation regarding sugar production in the outermost regions, so that the new balance of production and supply in the European Union does not entail any deterioration for the regions concerned.
  Also, the support instruments for processing businesses in the outermost regions, including the Azores, will be reviewed in the report on an overall strategy for sustainable development in the outermost regions which the Commission must adopt by the end of 2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sugar produced from Azorean beet may be marketed freely on markets outside the Azores.

By contrast, sugar refined in the Azores, for which Sinaga is supplied under the specific supply arrangements, is intended to meet the requirements of the Azores themselves and may not be exported or shipped from the Azores, with the exception of traditional quantities. The Court of justice recently ruled on the concept of ‘traditional quantities’ in case C-282/00. It confirmed the correctness of the Commission's approach in considering traditional shipments or exports to be the average trade flows over the three years preceding the entry into force of the Poseima regime in 1992, i.e. 1989, 1990 and 1991. The Court of Justice ruled that the shipments had to be ‘ongoing, regular and significant’ ... ‘at the time that the Poseima Programme was implemented’ and that ‘Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those requirements’.

As regards the future development of the Community sugar sector, in the last quarter of 2003 the Commission will present a communication on the reform of the common market organisation for the sector. In its initiatives, the Commission will take account of the special situation regarding sugar production in the outermost regions, so that the new balance of production and supply in the European Union does not entail any deterioration for the regions concerned.

Also, the support instruments for processing businesses in the outermost regions, including the Azores, will be reviewed in the report on an overall strategy for sustainable development in the outermost regions which the Commission must adopt by the end of 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 110, 17.5.1995, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima), OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/22

---

(2004/C 84 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Penalisation of Portuguese farmers

At a recent meeting with milk producers from northern Portugal I was confronted with reports of the unjust treatment of Portuguese farmers who had exceeded the milk quota up to the end of March 2003.

These farmers have received penalties, whilst in Italy it has just been announced that an agreement has been approved to resolve the problem of Italian farmers in the same situation.

Can the Council provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and the measures which are being provided for or will be taken to remedy this injustice against Portuguese farmers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products introduced an additional levy scheme in that sector. The scheme has been extended several times, notably by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector. All Member States are obliged to comply with their respective reference quantities and must pay the Community, by way of the additional levy, an amount corresponding to any excess quantities produced.

The Council Decision of 16 July 2003, establishing the compatibility of the aid which the Italian Republic intends to grant its milk producers and published (1), lays down the following specific conditions:

| — | the amounts owed to the Community by Italian milk producers by virtue of the additional levy on milk and milk products for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 to be advanced by the Italian Government, |
| --- | --- |

—

the amounts owed to the Community by Italian milk producers by virtue of the additional levy on milk and milk products for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 to be advanced by the Italian Government,

| — | deferred payment of the debt by the producers in a number of equal annual instalments, without interest, over a period not exceeding 14 years. |
| --- | --- |

—

deferred payment of the debt by the producers in a number of equal annual instalments, without interest, over a period not exceeding 14 years.

That specific Decision, based on the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, was adopted unanimously by the members of the Council, on the basis of an assessment of the exceptional nature of the circumstances which prompted the Italian Government's request. Application of such a measure in other cases that might be considered comparable would therefore be a matter for individual assessment by the Council.

The Council also refers the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Brussels on 16/17 October 2003 and particularly to paragraph 38 of the conclusions in which the European Council welcomed the Commission's proposal to prolong the arrangement concerning the problems linked to the development of milk production in the Azores and invited the Council to examine it as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/23

---

(2004/C 84 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

With reference to Oral Question H-0036/02 (1) regarding the conditions under which prisoners taken during the Afghanistan war are being held by the USA in Guantanamo Bay, will the Council please list all citizens of Member States being held there? Will the Council please clarify whether the conditions under which those prisoners are being held, and the duration of their incarceration, comply with the terms of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Will the Council please outline the basis on which the military tribunals proposed by the USA comply with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial? Will the Council please indicate what action it is taking to ensure that the US is in full compliance with Geneva Conventions and what response it is receiving from US authorities in this regard?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the names, conditions of detention or duration of detention of Member States' citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay. As the Council has stated in its reply to Written Question E-1420/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a matter for the individual Member States concerned. It is accordingly for those Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary to ensure that their citizens' rights are respected. It is for the government of the USA to ensure that the detainees are held under conditions which do not violate international law and that any tribunal established by it complies with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial and with international law.

---

(1)  Written answer, 6.2.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/24

---

(2004/C 84 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Conservation of hedgerows

Hedgerow conservation appears very often to be in the general interest because hedgerows safeguard biodiversity and inhibit run-off and soil erosion, etc. In France, some départements now grant aid for the replanting of hedgerows.

However, besides planting there is also the question of upkeep, which in a way is currently a free service provided by the farmer to the local community.

Does the Commission think it would be possible to offset the cost of this service by introducing assistance for the annual maintenance of hedgerows?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Agri-environmental measures are included in the measures provided for in the national rural development plan for France. The plan contains a list of measures in this area that can be adapted by each region wishing to implement them. Planting, improving and maintaining hedgerows are listed as measures eligible for assistance from Community funds. Therefore, aid for the maintenance of hedgerows already exists.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/24

---

(2004/C 84 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: ‘cash flow audit’ and ‘value for money’ study by way of supplementary measures to clarify what happened and prevent any recurrence

| 1. | It has been announced that the Internal Audit Service, under the aegis of the Commission, is to carry out an investigation into fraud at Eurostat: does this supersede the independent investigation by OLAF, or will this first investigation be completed as originally planned? What is the difference in status between the investigations by the Internal Audit Service and OLAF? In what respect might they possibly supplement each other? |
| --- | --- |

1.

It has been announced that the Internal Audit Service, under the aegis of the Commission, is to carry out an investigation into fraud at Eurostat: does this supersede the independent investigation by OLAF, or will this first investigation be completed as originally planned? What is the difference in status between the investigations by the Internal Audit Service and OLAF? In what respect might they possibly supplement each other?

| 2. | Will the investigation by the Internal Audit Service be subject to restrictions? Will it include a value-for-money study or not? What may be excluded from the investigation? Will the Commission make available to the European Parliament all the information obtained by means of this investigation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the investigation by the Internal Audit Service be subject to restrictions? Will it include a value-for-money study or not? What may be excluded from the investigation? Will the Commission make available to the European Parliament all the information obtained by means of this investigation?

| 3. | Would not a cash flow audit, as proposed by the former chief accounting officer, Mrs Andreasen, but which Director-General Mingasson advised against, have revealed the existence of concealed accounts much sooner? Is such an audit now being introduced? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would not a cash flow audit, as proposed by the former chief accounting officer, Mrs Andreasen, but which Director-General Mingasson advised against, have revealed the existence of concealed accounts much sooner? Is such an audit now being introduced?

| 4. | Have the individuals who are under investigation regularly visited their offices since their transfer and could they have shredded or removed documents since their transfer because they have not been denied access to Eurostat buildings? Why were they allowed free access while the former chief accounting officer was denied access to Commission buildings? Might it be desirable to take swift action now in order to avert the possibility that documents may disappear for good? Ought this not to have been done much sooner, in view of the information which the Commission now possesses? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Have the individuals who are under investigation regularly visited their offices since their transfer and could they have shredded or removed documents since their transfer because they have not been denied access to Eurostat buildings? Why were they allowed free access while the former chief accounting officer was denied access to Commission buildings? Might it be desirable to take swift action now in order to avert the possibility that documents may disappear for good? Ought this not to have been done much sooner, in view of the information which the Commission now possesses?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

Both Parliament's resolution on the fight against fraud and its Decision on the discharge for 2001 call for the Commission to carry out an audit report on Eurostat. On 11 June 2003 the Commission instructed the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to examine a sample of up to 400 contracts and grants selected by an agreed procedure. This examination in no way supplants the independent investigation currently being conducted by the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). As the Commission's decision states, the abovementioned examination is to focus on ascertaining whether or not contracts concluded between 1999 and 2002 were legal and complied with the rules. As such it does not seek to investigate possible fraud, which is the remit of OLAF. The two investigations are therefore complementary.

The Commission's decision to instruct IAS to examine a sample of contracts and grants rather than carry out a full audit of Eurostat's internal controls was dictated by constraints of time and resources. On enquiry from the IAS, Vice President Kinnock confirmed that examination of the execution of contracts or grants was not excluded. If the IAS preliminary analysis were to provide good reasons to examine the execution of contracts or grants, then the Internal Auditor should decide on that in consultation with the Secretary General of the Commission in his capacity as co-ordinator of Commission actions relating to the Eurostat examinations. Given the recognised resource constraints and the need to fulfil the IAS task inside the essential deadline, an examination of the execution of all sampled contracts/grants would not however be possible.

In actual fact, as the Conference of Presidents was told in July 2003, IAS's first internal audit report relates to both award procedures and contract execution.

A cash-flow audit is not part of the current IAS examination; a cash flow audit on the EC budget funding would not have discovered the off-budget accounts.

The Commission's objective has consistently been to ensure the audit material requested by Parliament is established and delivered on time.

Furthermore, on 8 July 2003 the Commission took steps to secure certain archives at Eurostat's premises as a precautionary measure.

The Honourable Member is also advised to refer to the answer given to Written Question E-2204/03 from Mrs Stauner (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 234.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/26

---

(2004/C 84 E/0028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2477/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Women's rights in Afghanistan

The Taliban's seizure of power in 1996 went hand in hand with a spectacular decline in the situation of Afghan women. Women were subjected to extreme psychological and physical repression in the form of a partial or total withdrawal of medical care, education, opportunities to earn a living and freedom of movement.

Many had hoped that the end of the Taliban regime would usher in a new era for Afghan women. In the European Parliament resolution of 5 September 2002 (1) it was stressed that absolute priority must be given to the situation of women in Afghanistan. Members of the European Parliament also asked for a new Afghan government to adopt and implement effective measures to improve the situation of women. The European Union also wishes to contribute to this process, and has provided for part of Europe's support for Afghanistan to be targeted directly at specific women's projects.

But a year and a half after the Bonn conference the situation of women is anything but favourable. In the country, where three-quarters of Afghans live, nothing has changed for women. This has been confirmed by Members of the European Parliament who participated in the EP delegation to Afghanistan: since the fall of the Taliban women's rights have improved only in Kabul, and over the whole country only 30 % of girls go to school.

How does the EU react to this continuing violation of women's rights? Which specific women's projects in Afghanistan are being funded by the EU? As well as supporting specific women's projects, is the EU taking other steps to improve the situation of women? What proportion of the European budget for Afghanistan is used entirely for the benefit of women?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The EU pays close attention to the observance of women's human rights in Afghanistan. In its contacts with the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA), the EU constantly stresses at all levels that the rights of Afghan women and the promotion of their full and equal participation in all aspects of public life constitute an important benchmark in assessing the performance of the ATA and in determining further EU policy towards Afghanistan. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EU pays close attention to the observance of women's human rights in Afghanistan. In its contacts with the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA), the EU constantly stresses at all levels that the rights of Afghan women and the promotion of their full and equal participation in all aspects of public life constitute an important benchmark in assessing the performance of the ATA and in determining further EU policy towards Afghanistan.

| 2. | The EU has also urged the members of the Afghan Constitutional Commission to respect gender equality, in line with international norms, in the future Constitution which will be adopted by the Constitutional Loya Jirga in a few months' time. The EU will do its utmost to ensure also that the new Constitution contains a clause establishing the primacy of international law, especially UN conventions on human rights, over domestic law, including the Sharia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EU has also urged the members of the Afghan Constitutional Commission to respect gender equality, in line with international norms, in the future Constitution which will be adopted by the Constitutional Loya Jirga in a few months' time. The EU will do its utmost to ensure also that the new Constitution contains a clause establishing the primacy of international law, especially UN conventions on human rights, over domestic law, including the Sharia.

| 3. | On 14 April 2003, the Council adopted conclusions stressing, ‘inter alia’, the importance of mainstreaming gender-awareness in ATA policy and urging the establishment of a constitutional framework for the promotion and the protection of human rights, especially with regard to women and girls. The Council also underscored gender-sensitivity as one of the qualities of a government to be established through free and fair elections by June 2004. These conclusions were shared with the Afghan Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. Abdullah, who met with the EU Ministers that very day. Gender issues are high on the agenda of the EU Troika Mission at State Secretary level to Afghanistan, planned in October. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 14 April 2003, the Council adopted conclusions stressing, ‘inter alia’, the importance of mainstreaming gender-awareness in ATA policy and urging the establishment of a constitutional framework for the promotion and the protection of human rights, especially with regard to women and girls. The Council also underscored gender-sensitivity as one of the qualities of a government to be established through free and fair elections by June 2004. These conclusions were shared with the Afghan Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. Abdullah, who met with the EU Ministers that very day. Gender issues are high on the agenda of the EU Troika Mission at State Secretary level to Afghanistan, planned in October.

| 4. | Since the fall of the Taliban, there are a few signs of improvement: girls go to school in increasing numbers and, in the larger urban centres, also attend higher education, ministries are hiring women and as a whole many women have gone back to work outside their homes. A very positive step was the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women on 5 March 2003.
  However, the Council agrees with the Honourable MEP that the situation of women remains unacceptable regarding education and work possibilities, legal protection and their full and equal participation in public life. In addition, women are the primary victims of insecurity, which threatens their lives and their dignity. A lot of work remains to be done, subject to the allocation of sufficient resources. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Since the fall of the Taliban, there are a few signs of improvement: girls go to school in increasing numbers and, in the larger urban centres, also attend higher education, ministries are hiring women and as a whole many women have gone back to work outside their homes. A very positive step was the ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women on 5 March 2003.

However, the Council agrees with the Honourable MEP that the situation of women remains unacceptable regarding education and work possibilities, legal protection and their full and equal participation in public life. In addition, women are the primary victims of insecurity, which threatens their lives and their dignity. A lot of work remains to be done, subject to the allocation of sufficient resources.

| 5. | For details on specific gender-oriented programmes, the Honourable MEP might wish to apply to the Commission and the relevant ministries of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

5.

For details on specific gender-oriented programmes, the Honourable MEP might wish to apply to the Commission and the relevant ministries of the Member States.

---

(1)  P5-TA(2002)0407.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/27

---

(2004/C 84 E/0029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2482/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Prevention against the risk of forest fires: Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92

Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1), which made provision for the funding of measures to prevent against the risk of forest fires, expired on 31 December 2002. The fact that Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 acted as an incentive for regional and national fire prevention policies has been amply demonstrated over the past 10 years. During that period, the average area of forest damaged by each fire fell in the south of France, Spain and Portugal. Nevertheless, the fresh Commission proposal for a regulation (Forest Focus) and the new rural development regulation represent a renationalisation of policy on forest fires which entails the disappearance of a Community financial arrangement for prevention against the risks of forest fires such as that provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92. At the same time, this proposal does not accord with the arguments brought by the Court of Justice of the European Communities to the effect that policy on protection against forest fires is to be seen as a Community policy within the framework of environment policy which is to be financed by funds drawn from the EU budget.

The Council:

| 1. | Is it aware that the proposal for a Forest Focus regulation does not tally with the recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which opposes the renationalisation of policy on combating fires and argues that it should be dealt with under the codecision procedure with Parliament? What arguments justified the Council's rejection at first reading of all Parliament's amendments seeking to reintroduce fire prevention as part of Community environment policy following the stance taken by the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it aware that the proposal for a Forest Focus regulation does not tally with the recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which opposes the renationalisation of policy on combating fires and argues that it should be dealt with under the codecision procedure with Parliament? What arguments justified the Council's rejection at first reading of all Parliament's amendments seeking to reintroduce fire prevention as part of Community environment policy following the stance taken by the Court of Justice?

| 2. | Is it aware of the adverse consequences which the proposal for a Forest Focus regulation might have as regards combating forest fires at Community level? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it aware of the adverse consequences which the proposal for a Forest Focus regulation might have as regards combating forest fires at Community level?

| 3. | Will it change its standpoint and accept Parliament's requests in this matter at second reading, particularly as regards restoring specific funding devoted solely to prevention and management activities to protect forests against the risk of fire? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will it change its standpoint and accept Parliament's requests in this matter at second reading, particularly as regards restoring specific funding devoted solely to prevention and management activities to protect forests against the risk of fire?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the public deliberation which took place at the Council meeting on 6 November 2003 on the draft ‘Forest Focus’ Regulation and to the conclusions reached. At that time the Council approved the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at second reading on the proposal for a Regulation concerning monitoring of forest and environmental interactions in the Community. Consequently, and since the EP's amendments correspond to a compromise agreement reached by the Council, the Regulation is adopted in the form of the Council's Common Position thus amended.

The Regulation provides a multiannual framework covering initially a 6-year period from 2003 to 2008. It aims at adapting the scope of existing Council Regulations (EEC) No 3528/86 and (EEC) No 2158/92 to provide a flexible monitoring scheme to assess forest ecosystem conditions in a broader context. It also simplifies existing activities by regrouping elements of both Regulations under a single framework Regulation covering the protection and monitoring of forests.

---

(1)  OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/28

---

(2004/C 84 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Investment

Further to the Commission's very interesting answer to my question E-1350/03 (1) on 22 May 2003 concerning foreign direct investment into the eurozone countries and the non-eurozone EU Member States, is the Commission now in a position to update those figures given in its tables to include last year (2002)? If not, when will it be able to do so?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Updated tables are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The data for 2002 are preliminary estimates sent by Member States to Eurostat in June 2003 together with revised 2001 data. For Denmark and Spain, data exclude reinvested earnings. For Greece and Sweden, data exclude reinvested earnings in some cases. Aggregates include estimated reinvested earnings in all these cases. Preliminary data for 2002 and revised data for 2001 are not available for partner ‘Eurozone countries’.

---

(1)  See page 8.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/28

---

(2004/C 84 E/0031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Opinion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee on the Eurostat Task Force

On 9 July 2003 the Commission decided to set up a Task Force to investigate the complaints against Eurostat. The Task Force is intended to speed up the internal and external enquiries previously managed by the OLAF Anti-Fraud Office alone.

This infringes OLAF's powers to conduct investigations independently, which Parliament and the Council expressly guaranteed in Regulation (EC) 1073/1999 (1) of 25 May 1999.

Before the decision of 9 July 2003, did the Director and/or the Commission consult the OLAF Supervisory Committee, which has the task of safeguarding the independence of the Anti-Fraud Office?

If not, why not?

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/29

---

(2004/C 84 E/0032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat Task Force and OLAF independence

On 9 July 2003 the Commission decided to set up a task force to investigate the complaints against Eurostat. Commission Press Release IP/03/979 states: ‘A multidisciplinary Commission Task Force will be set up to take rapidly forward the internal and external sides of the enquiries currently managed by OLAF alone. The Task Force will also carry out a full-scale administrative enquiry aimed at assessing the personal responsibilities of other staff involved with any financial irregularities. The Task Force will be managed by Mr Peter Zangl, currently Deputy Director-General of DG INFSO, and under the authority of Mr F.-H. Brüner, Director-General of OLAF.’

This decision conflicts with the Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (1), by which the Commission handed over to OLAF its powers to carry out internal and external administrative investigations (Article 2 of the Decision). It also conflicts with Article 3 of this Decision, which expressly guarantees OLAF's independence in exercising its investigative powers. In particular, the appointment of an official who does not belong to OLAF to lead the Task Force conflicts with the stipulation that the Director of OLAF may not take instructions from the Commission.

In these circumstances, has the Commission looked into the risk that officials and firms affected by the Task Force's investigations may challenge their legality?

What conclusions does the Commission draw in this connection from the recent Court of Justice rulings in Cases C-11/00 and C-15/00, which stressed the particular importance of OLAF investigations being independent?

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/29

---

(2004/C 84 E/0033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2530/03

by Gabriele Statiner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat Task Force

On 9 July 2003, in the wake of the accusations made against Eurostat and in response to a proposal from Mr Kinnock, Vice-President, the Commission decided to set up a Task Force which is to take over the internal and external investigations hitherto conducted by OLAF. Pursuant to the Commission decision, the Task Force will be headed by Mr Peter Zangl, an EU official who is not on the staff of OLAF but Deputy Director-General in the Information Society DG.

Can the Commission indicate why, in opting to follow the proposals of its Vice-President, it has in this way interfered in the independence of OLAF which is guaranteed by the legislator (in Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)) and by the Commission itself (in Commission Decision 1999/352/EC (2))?

Can the Commission indicate in particular the manner in which the Director of OLAF was involved in its Decision of 9 July 2003 and the extent to which its actions comply with the provision that, in the performance of his investigative duties, the Director of OLAF must neither seek nor take instructions from the Commission?

In its judgments of 10 July 2003 in Cases C-11/00 and C-15/00, the European Court of Justice emphasised the special importance of the independence of OLAF's investigations.

That being the case, has the Commission assessed the risk that any officials or undertakings concerned by the Task Force's investigations may contest the regularity of those investigations?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2515/03, E-2516/03 and P-2530/03

given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

The Honourable Members will be aware that, the Commission is entitled at any time to have audits, verifications and ad hoc analyses of its departments' financial activities carried out in order to check compliance with the Financial Regulation and internal rules of good administrative practice. Such audits and verifications can enable the Commission to detect systemic shortcomings and draw the appropriate conclusions in organisational terms.

Furthermore, as part of the follow-up to the budget discharge — and at Parliament's request — the Commission is scrutinising a number of contracts concluded by Eurostat with private companies with a view to determining the nature and scope of the contractual relationships involved. The review covers certain past contracts and contracts that continued.

It was also in this context that the multidisciplinary Task Force was set up on 9 July 2003 and its remit spelled out in full by the Commission on 23 July. The Task Force is to report on the following points:

| — | the financial circuits in operation at Eurostat; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial circuits in operation at Eurostat;

| — | authorisation procedures; |
| --- | --- |

—

authorisation procedures;

| — | day-to-day arrangements for the management of outside contractors; |
| --- | --- |

—

day-to-day arrangements for the management of outside contractors;

| — | instructions regarding corrective measures given by management and action taken. |
| --- | --- |

—

instructions regarding corrective measures given by management and action taken.

The job of the Task Force is explicitly to provide the Commission with the information necessary for it to take any management and organisation measures that are required in order to ensure that the Financial Regulation and the associated rules of good administrative practice are observed. The Commission has in no way sought to compromise the independence of OLAF.

The role and objectives of the Task Force are therefore not the same as those of OLAF. Under Article 1(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF has the task of ‘investigating [within the Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies established by, or on the basis of, the Treaties] ... serious matters relating to the discharge of professional duties such as to constitute a dereliction of the obligations of officials and other servants of the Communities liable to result in disciplinary or, as the case may be, criminal proceedings, or an equivalent failure to discharge obligations on the part of members of Institutions and bodies ...’. That said, there is nothing to prevent the work of the Task Force being used by OLAF in so far as its activities complement investigations being undertaken by OLAF.

The Commission is indeed required by Article 7(1) of Regulation 1073/1999 to inform OLAF of possible cases of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity.

It follows that the activities of the task force are not liable to encroach on OLAF's powers or compromise the independence of its investigation. In any event, the Director of OLAF and the Head of the Task Force liase regularly, and the Director of OLAF has the power to ensure that OLAF's independence is fully protected.

The Commission cannot therefore see how the setting-up of the Task Force could interfere with the exercise of OLAF's powers or jeopardise the independence of its Director-General, to whom the Commission has not issued any instruction but who has agreed to the necessary link set up between the Task Force and OLAF. The Commission cannot see what risk the creation and operation of the task force could represent for the legality of OLAF's investigation.

The Commission has been informed by OLAF that the OLAF Supervisory Committee has been consulted without delay after the Commission's decision by the Director-General of OLAF. The consultation is ongoing.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/31

---

(2004/C 84 E/0034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2562/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan

According to the press agency MISNA, during the clashes of the last few weeks between rebel forces and the Sudanese government, Antonov aircraft of the Sudanese airforce have hit 25 villages in the north-west of the western state of Darfur, using unspecified ‘toxic gases’ which are said to have killed 300 people and injured more than 200 others.

The government of the President General Hassan Al Bashir has not yet responded to the accusation that he wants to hit the population of Darfur, made by the Sudanese people's liberation army (SPLM/A). Peace talks between the Sudanese government and SPLM/A have been suspended yet again and the start of discussions, scheduled for this week, has been postponed until 3 August.

On 11 July the government delegation refused to accept as a basis for the future talks the framework agreement put forward by IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), the regional organisation of the countries of the Horn of Africa which is directing the negotiations, after the SPLM/A delegation had publicly expressed its satisfaction with the document. Since it was signed in July last year no action has been taken on the preliminary protocol of understanding between the two sides and the Khartoum government seems to have no intention of giving up or sharing control over the oil-producing areas in the south, the revenue produced or the new armed forces, which the dictator Al-Bashir has been employing to murder people in Sudan for many years.

Can the Council say:

| — | whether, in the light of these events, it intends to denounce the agreement initialled on 10 December last year with the Sudanese government, since the latter is indiscriminately using its military arsenal and does not seem to have any intention of implementing the Machakos protocol of July last year; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, in the light of these events, it intends to denounce the agreement initialled on 10 December last year with the Sudanese government, since the latter is indiscriminately using its military arsenal and does not seem to have any intention of implementing the Machakos protocol of July last year;

| — | whether it considers that Al Bashir's dictatorial regime, responsible for what amounts to genocide of the non-Muslim population, can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that Al Bashir's dictatorial regime, responsible for what amounts to genocide of the non-Muslim population, can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan;

| — | whether it intends to take unified action on behalf of the European Union in all multilateral fora, starting with the United Nations, to step up international pressure on the Sudanese government to isolate its murderous dictator? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to take unified action on behalf of the European Union in all multilateral fora, starting with the United Nations, to step up international pressure on the Sudanese government to isolate its murderous dictator?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

Following the European Union's decision to initiate a renewed political dialogue with the Government of Sudan (GoS) in 1999, meetings take place in Khartoum to assess the progress in the areas of the dialogue (human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the peace process). Recent focus has been on the peace process. The outcome of these discussions is reflected in a joint EU-Sudan communiqué referred to by the Honourable Member of Parliament in his question as the agreement of 10 December 2002.

On 3 September the GoS and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), under the auspices of the Chadian President, agreed on a cease-fire in Darfur. As regards the clashes between rebel forces and the GoS armed forces in Darfur the Council has no information on the use of ‘toxic gases’. Nonetheless, the Council is aware that the fighting in this region resulted in humanitarian disaster.

Despite interruptions during summer, the peace negotiations have moved forward meanwhile and an agreement on security arrangements was reached between the GoS and the SPLM/A on 24 September. Both parties also agreed to extend the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the cessation of hostilities up to 30 November 2003. The EU encouraged both parties not to lose momentum in order to reach a final and comprehensive agreement as soon as possible.

The EU is coordinating its diplomatic activities in particular with IGAD, within the IGAD Partner Forum, the UN and the US according to its approach towards Sudan that all international actors should work together in order to maximise the chances for a comprehensive peace agreement.

The Council believes that negotiating a comprehensive peace deal between the GoS and the SPLM/A is the only way to stop the 20-year conflict. It will continue to accompany Sudan on the path of peace building, respect of human rights, democracy and development.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/32

---

(2004/C 84 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2609/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject:   Products in respect of which payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield

The consequences of the persistent drought in Europe are becoming increasingly clear. As a result of the drought, European agricultural yields are well below the annual average. In anticipation of the decoupling scheduled for 2004 in respect of those products where payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield (such as starch potatoes), is the Commission prepared to make payment of the premium not dependent on per-hectare yield but to make payments on the basis of average harvests in previous years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The reform of the common agricultural policy adopted by the Council in June 2003 will enter into force in 2005.

Therefore, the specific provisions on decoupling, the detailed rules for the application of which are currently being drawn up so that the Commission can adopt a decision in the near future, may not be applied before then.

It should be pointed out that, with the exception of starch potatoes, all arable crops already qualify for per-hectare aid decoupled from actual yield.

The Honourable Member's suggestion to anticipate the decisions on decoupling in the case of starch potatoes cannot be followed. On the one hand, farmers would receive higher premiums but on the other, farmers with few or no historical reference amounts would be heavily penalised.

It should also be pointed out that the Commission proposed that the reform should apply from 2004. However, the Council insisted on postponing it by one year, with the possibility of extending this to 2007.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/32

---

(2004/C 84 E/0036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/03

by Michel-Ange Scarbonchi (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Establishment of a European civil protection corps

The fires which recently swept through Europe, destroying several thousand hectares of vegetation, highlighted the chronic lack of forest fire prevention and control resources. The Commission must respond to such disasters with the utmost urgency.

While the existence of a European civil protection centre in which the EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein are involved and the setting up on 18 August 2002 of a European Solidarity Fund are a cause for some hope, given the devastating impact which fires have on the communities and local councils concerned and the damage they cause to the environment and economic activities such as forestry and tourism, fire-fighting resources need to be stepped up and new prevention and intervention rules need to be laid down at European level.

The management of forests and other natural resources, which cover 60 million hectares in 25 countries in the Mediterranean area, must remain an economic and social priority. The establishment of a European civil protection corps would enable such disasters to be dealt with more effectively.

There are many arguments in favour of a new administrative and technical entity, which could be placed under the supervision of the European Parliament and under the responsibility of the competent national authorities, given that civil protection falls within the sphere of responsibility of the Member States.

In the run-up to the forthcoming enlargement, this would send out a strong signal in support of European forests. What are the Council's views on this proposal? Can it take action in support of the establishment of a European civil protection corps?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council fully shares the regrets of the Honourable Parliamentarian about the large forest fires that devastated tens of thousands of hectares of woodland in Spain, France and Italy, and especially in Portugal, in summer 2003. To this extent, the Council notes that the fires gave rise to unprecedented manifestations of concrete solidarity amongst the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council fully shares the regrets of the Honourable Parliamentarian about the large forest fires that devastated tens of thousands of hectares of woodland in Spain, France and Italy, and especially in Portugal, in summer 2003. To this extent, the Council notes that the fires gave rise to unprecedented manifestations of concrete solidarity amongst the Member States.

| 2. | As far as the setting up of a European civil protection corps for the purpose of forest protection, the Council recalls that it is in principle for the Member States to take appropriate measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As far as the setting up of a European civil protection corps for the purpose of forest protection, the Council recalls that it is in principle for the Member States to take appropriate measures.

| 3. | Nevertheless at Community level, actions have been undertaken: First, in the framework of the common agricultural policy the Council has adopted regulation 2158/92 in order to provide for a Community contribution to the protection of forests against fire. Also, like the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council recognises the positive role of the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) established under the Council Decision on a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (1) in contributing to mobilising the assets for these interventions. In that framework, the Member States have already identified Civil Protection capabilities that may be provided on a case by case basis. These capabilities include intervention teams and assessment coordination teams that are trained in common (2). Given the current limitations of this centre in facing emergencies of exceptional magnitude, the Council welcomes the Commission's intention to further develop its capabilities for dealing with natural and technological disasters and, in particular, to update the Mechanism's database of civil protection resources regarding available fire-fighting capabilities.
  Finally, Parliament and Council have adopted a decision and an amending budget with a view to mobilising, for allocation to Portugal (fires), an amount of EUR 48,539 million from the European Solidarity Fund.
  In addition, the Commission is expected to submit, in the forthcoming months, a communication on a common approach for the evaluation, prevention and consequence management of natural and man-made risks.
  As indicated above, work in the Council is being undertaken with a view to improving the present state of play. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Nevertheless at Community level, actions have been undertaken: First, in the framework of the common agricultural policy the Council has adopted regulation 2158/92 in order to provide for a Community contribution to the protection of forests against fire. Also, like the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council recognises the positive role of the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) established under the Council Decision on a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (1) in contributing to mobilising the assets for these interventions. In that framework, the Member States have already identified Civil Protection capabilities that may be provided on a case by case basis. These capabilities include intervention teams and assessment coordination teams that are trained in common (2). Given the current limitations of this centre in facing emergencies of exceptional magnitude, the Council welcomes the Commission's intention to further develop its capabilities for dealing with natural and technological disasters and, in particular, to update the Mechanism's database of civil protection resources regarding available fire-fighting capabilities.

Finally, Parliament and Council have adopted a decision and an amending budget with a view to mobilising, for allocation to Portugal (fires), an amount of EUR 48,539 million from the European Solidarity Fund.

In addition, the Commission is expected to submit, in the forthcoming months, a communication on a common approach for the evaluation, prevention and consequence management of natural and man-made risks.

As indicated above, work in the Council is being undertaken with a view to improving the present state of play.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2001/792 EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions, OJ L 297, 15.11.2001, p. 7.

(2)  Docs 11625/03 PE-QE 336 and 5657/2/03 OE-HQ 24 REV 2.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/34

---

(2004/C 84 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   European citizenship financing

The proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship (civic participation) (presented by the Commission) C5-0321/03 lists several means by which the Commission has been providing financial support for the idea of ‘European citizenship’.

Following the assertions made in this document, will the Commission say:

| — | which ‘European think tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe’ it has been financing under budget heading A-3021; |
| --- | --- |

—

which ‘European think tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe’ it has been financing under budget heading A-3021;

| — | to which ‘associations and federations of European interest’ it has contributed co-financing under budget heading A-3024; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to which ‘associations and federations of European interest’ it has contributed co-financing under budget heading A-3024; and

| — | which ‘European think tanks’ have benefited from Commission co-financing under budget heading A-3026? |
| --- | --- |

—

which ‘European think tanks’ have benefited from Commission co-financing under budget heading A-3026?

Will the Commission also say which organisations are set to receive funding under three headings in Part Β of the budget; which organisations make up the ‘Platform of European Social NGOs’ and how much co-finance funding each of these organisations will receive under budget headings B3-4105 and B5-803?

Finally: ‘Most of these operations have hitherto been carried out without any legal basis’ — What are the implications for the Commission of carrying out operations ‘without any legal basis’?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission has provided financial support to organisations actively working for European cooperation (budget line A-3021), to European Think Tanks researching European integration policy (budget line A-3026) and to associations and federations of European interest (budget line A-3024). A list of the organisations benefiting from Community financial support in 2003 is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The list of beneficiaries of these grants in 2002 can be found in: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/commun/rap-pe_2002_en.pdf).

In its draft legal basis on European civic participation, the Commission proposes to finance organisations which received funding under Part Β of the budget in order to further promote a sustained dialogue with civil society organisations on the building of Europe and to contribute to establishing the new form of governance advocated in the Social Policy Agenda adopted at Nice. This concerns on the one hand nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), associations and federations of European interest or cross-industry trade unions. On the other hand it focuses on the organisations active in promoting fundamental social rights and combating and preventing social exclusion and discrimination which are represented in the Platform of European Social NGOs.

A list of the members of the Platform of European Social NGOs (and funding received under budget headings B3-4105 and B5-803) is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In the past, these operations were carried out without any legal basis because, since the appropriations were entered in Part A of the budget, they were seen as administrative expenditure and therefore did not require a legal basis. It is the disappearance of Part A as a result of the introduction of the ABB (‘activity- based budgeting’) approach that, from 2004, will make it necessary to have a legal basis for operations which can no longer be regarded as administrative expenditure; until then, a legal basis is not legally required in order to use these appropriations.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/35

---

(2004/C 84 E/0038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2680/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Setting up a United Nations Interim Administration in Chechnya

An ambitious report (An Agenda for Renewal: US-Russian Relations), published by the Carnegie Endowment (USA) in 2000, states that ‘there is no solution’ to the conflict in Chechnya, because a withdrawal of Russian troops, allegedly the only way to stop the war, would be tantamount to victory for the Chechen radical nationalists and the international mujahedin, a scenario that is ‘not in the United States’ interests' and that ‘would be appalling for all the north Caucasian peoples’. In other words, both President Putin and some pro-democracy think tanks claim that Russia has no choice but to continue its genocidai war in Chechnya. A withdrawal by Russian troops would, in the view of both parties, be seen as a victory for Chechen forces and lead to the transformation of Chechnya into a ‘base’ for Chechen nationalists and international terrorism. There is, however, an alternative to these false alternatives. On 15 March 2003, Ilyas Akhmadov, the Chechen Foreign Minister, presented a new peace plan, under which a United Nations Interim Administration would be set up in Chechnya, a proposal that was sent to the foreign ministers of the EU Member States and applicant countries, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, and the Commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten. Moreover, during a programme recently broadcast by the Moscow radio station Echo Moskvy dealing with the issue of setting up a United Nations Interim Administration in Chechnya, 75 % of those who expressed their opinion were in favour of Mr Akhmadov's solution. Although not a scientific poll, it is a new and undeniably significant indication of the Russian people's feelings on this subject.

What is the Council's evaluation of the peace plan put forward by the Chechen Foreign Minister proposing that a United Nations Interim Administration be set up in Chechnya? Does the Council share the opinion of President Putin and some think tanks that the only alternative to the ongoing genocidai war would be the creation in Chechnya of a base for Chechen extremists and international terrorism? Does the Council not think that a UN Interim Administration, like the one in Kosovo, could establish democracy and the rule of law in the space of a few years and, as a result, help create a more effective antidote to any potential drift towards extremism?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council is not aware of the details of the peace plan put forward by the ‘Chechen Foreign Minister’ proposing that a United Nations Interim Administration be set up in Chechnya.

The Council is much concerned by the situation in Chechnya and raises the need for a genuine reconciliation regularly when meeting the Russian authorities. The Council believes in a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Chechnya through the restoration of the rule of law and the full respect of human rights.

The Council has several times encouraged the Russian authorities, along with international organisations, to develop and implement a political settlement process in Chechnya.

On 8 October last the Presidency, on behalf of the EU, issued a declaration on the presidential elections in Chechnya in which it expressed its serious doubts regarding the fairness of the electoral process and the conditions in which these elections were held.

The Union intends to continue to make known its concerns to the Russian authorities in relation to the situation in Chechnya.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/36

---

(2004/C 84 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Costs of using Microsoft software

Can the Commission indicate the total annual cost of running the computer systems using Microsoft software, and can it confirm that it has considered using Linux Open Office which could save money and also increase security given that Microsoft programmes come with an in-built backdoor used by US intelligence agencies?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

The Commission estimates the current total annual cost of Microsoft products for its central office automation infrastructure to be around EUR 226 per user.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that this amount corresponds to approximately 7 % of the total yearly cost of EUR 3 173 per user required for the operation of the office automation environment; the remaining 93 % includes software from other editors, hardware, network connectivity and the infrastructure needed to connect to information systems.

It should be highlighted that Microsoft does not sell its products directly, but through Large Account Resellers (LARs) who can — and do — compete with each other. Therefore, the Commission's expenditure in this area is paid to a LAR selected on the basis of the Community public procurement Directives, and not to Microsoft. The ongoing LAR contract was awarded to Siemens, but a call for tenders is running at the moment for the selection of the Commission's (and several other Institutions) next LAR.

Furthermore, the Commission, in co-operation with the other Institutions closely follows the evolution of the Open Source Software solutions in general and, in particular, in the office automation area where it is presently carrying out a pilot exercise. A detailed exposé regarding Commission's activities in this area is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/36

---

(2004/C 84 E/0040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2760/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   ‘Mexillón de Galicia’ (Galician mussels) — protected designation of origin (PDO)

Between 260 and 300 million kg of exceptionally fine mussels are marketed every year; turnover totals more than EUR 400 million; 2 400 families are directly involved in mussel culture; and the sector provides 13 000 jobs, of which approximately 8 500 are permanent, plus 7 000 generated indirectly. These figures are a measure of the strength of Galician mussel culture and make Galicia the world's largest producer of cultivated mussels for human consumption. They are, moreover, particularly significant in view of the fact that the proceeds of production are spread across a broad social base and, because decision-making machinery is concentrated at the local level, reinvested in the region itself. The resulting knock-on effect on the local economy makes for social and economic stability. The sector accounts for about 50 % of total EU production: 3 5 % of its produce is sold fresh, 41 % is canned or preserved by traditional methods, and 24 % is used for the increasingly popular alternative new ways of processing. The Galician mussel cultivation management board has already applied for a protected designation of origin (PDO), which would constitute a worldwide benchmark because it would be the first to be awarded to a seafood product. In his answer of 30 October 2002 to my Written Question E-3117/02 (1) Mr Fischler stated that ‘The examination of the application for the name'Mejillones de Galicia'to be registered has already been the subject of several working meetings of the Scientific Committee, which has also asked for further information ... The next meeting will take place in early January 2003’.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what progress has been made in the PDO approval and registration procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in the PDO approval and registration procedure?

| 2. | Can it explain the reasons for the delay and the possible obstacles to approval? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it explain the reasons for the delay and the possible obstacles to approval?

| 3. | What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to facilitate and speed up approval of the PDO for Galician mussels? When does it think that the approval and registration procedure will be completed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to facilitate and speed up approval of the PDO for Galician mussels? When does it think that the approval and registration procedure will be completed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The application for the name Mejillón de Galicia to be registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) was submitted on 19 February 2001. The application referred to a specification including two types of presentation: fresh mussels and processed mussels (heat-treated and then frozen or chilled).

The file received did not contain all the information needed to show that all the requirements for registration stipulated in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) were met.

The Commission asked for further information in order to be able to assess the validity of the application. Since the replies received were not sufficient to dispel the doubts on certain points, the Scientific Committee for protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical indications (PGIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) was asked to give an opinion.

In April 2003 the Committee concluded that heat treatment and freezing alter the physical and organoleptic characteristics of the fresh product and sever the link between the quality of the fresh product and the geographical area of production. Thus the treatments described are not compatible with the designation of origin concept. The Committee therefore found against registration of the name Mejillón de Galicia as a protected designation of origin with a specification including presentation in processed form (‘procesada’). But it endorsed registration of the name with a specification restricted to the fresh presentation.

Given the Committee's opinion, the fact that more than one quality label exists (protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication) and the reputation enjoyed by Galician mussels, the Spanish authorities have been invited to discuss with the Commission's officials what is the best solution for the application.

---

(1)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 167.

(2)  OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/37

---

(2004/C 84 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros

According to the Imvros Association of Athens, the implementation of the Turkish national land register on Imvros has led to the loss of most of Greek property on the island which has been arbitrarily registered as belonging to the Turkish State. According to the results of the land register carried out in June 2003, 100 % of the uncultivated land in the village of Agridia on Imvros which is a purely Greek village has been registered as belonging to the Turkish State, although Greeks hold legal property titles to this land. Bearing in mind a previous statement by the Council that Turkish-EU relations must be based on a clear commitment to respect law and international agreements, and given that the Treaty of Lausanne provides for self-rule for the Greek inhabitants of Imvros and Tenedos and in particular for respect for their language, religion and property and that Turkey is a candidate country, will the Council say how it intends to intervene with the Turkish authorities to guarantee the protection of the property of Greek on Imvros?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council is well aware that under the Lausanne treaty Turkey has obligations towards non-Moslem minorities as regards the protection of persons and property. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council is well aware that under the Lausanne treaty Turkey has obligations towards non-Moslem minorities as regards the protection of persons and property.

| 2. | The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. Moreover, Turkey should ensure full and effective implementation of reforms to ensure that Turkish citizens can enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with European standards including civil and property rights. This is being constantly made clear to Turkey and is also reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the relevant priority, requesting Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. Moreover, Turkey should ensure full and effective implementation of reforms to ensure that Turkish citizens can enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with European standards including civil and property rights. This is being constantly made clear to Turkey and is also reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the relevant priority, requesting Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’.

| 3. | The Council is keeping the matter under close review and will continue to make this point. The Commission's regular report for 2003 on Turkey's progress in the accession process, (November 2003), [will give] a full assessment of the State of Turkey's compliance with membership requirements. Human rights — including the implementation aspect — will feature prominently in this report. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council is keeping the matter under close review and will continue to make this point. The Commission's regular report for 2003 on Turkey's progress in the accession process, (November 2003), [will give] a full assessment of the State of Turkey's compliance with membership requirements. Human rights — including the implementation aspect — will feature prominently in this report.

| 4. | Specific action in respect of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member is not being considered at this stage. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Specific action in respect of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member is not being considered at this stage.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/38

---

(2004/C 84 E/0042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Criteria for the assignment and removal of special adviser status for officials and their disappearance from the Commission's establishment plan

| 1. | On the basis of what criteria are Commission officials who are temporarily suspended from their posts assigned the status of ‘special adviser’, ‘chief adviser’ or ‘adviser hors classe’ in the establishment plan of DG Admin? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of what criteria are Commission officials who are temporarily suspended from their posts assigned the status of ‘special adviser’, ‘chief adviser’ or ‘adviser hors classe’ in the establishment plan of DG Admin?

| 2. | On the basis of what criteria do Commission officials disappear from the establishment plan referred to at 1? Does this mean that they have now been appointed to another, more permanent post? Or may it also mean that they are going to be dismissed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of what criteria do Commission officials disappear from the establishment plan referred to at 1? Does this mean that they have now been appointed to another, more permanent post? Or may it also mean that they are going to be dismissed?

| 3. | Inter alia in the light of the problems at Eurostat and previous reports of undesirable developments in the management of EU funds, does the Commission consider it desirable that the officials to whom such status has been assigned and who possess financial know-how should remain available to serve the EU, at least so long as they have not committed fraud but on the contrary have demonstrated their aversion to that offence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Inter alia in the light of the problems at Eurostat and previous reports of undesirable developments in the management of EU funds, does the Commission consider it desirable that the officials to whom such status has been assigned and who possess financial know-how should remain available to serve the EU, at least so long as they have not committed fraud but on the contrary have demonstrated their aversion to that offence?

| 4. | In this context, what significance is to be attached to the fact the Commission's former chief accounting officer, Mrs Marta Andreasen, no longer figures in this establishment plan? When was she removed from it, for how long and why? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In this context, what significance is to be attached to the fact the Commission's former chief accounting officer, Mrs Marta Andreasen, no longer figures in this establishment plan? When was she removed from it, for how long and why?

| 5. | Can the secrecy which has so far existed with regard to officials' being assigned or deprived of special adviser status soon be replaced with public arrangements which do not afford any scope for rumours or accusations of arbitrariness? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the secrecy which has so far existed with regard to officials' being assigned or deprived of special adviser status soon be replaced with public arrangements which do not afford any scope for rumours or accusations of arbitrariness?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

| 1. | As appointing authority the Commission may, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and operational rules, decide to reassign an official from a management position to a non-management function at any time, if it considers this to be in the interest of the service. Directors can therefore be reassigned to a function of ‘principal adviser’. The corresponding non-managerial function for Directors General and Deputy Directors General is ‘adviser hors classe’.
  ‘Special advisers’ are individuals who -on account of their expertise and qualifications- are given a contract as special adviser and are attached to one of the Commissioners. They can be outside experts or retired (high level) Commission officials, and in the latter case are only entitled to reimbursement of expenses. Special advisers to the Commission are not (or no longer) Commission officials and hence do not exercise managerial functions, nor do they appear in the organisation chart. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As appointing authority the Commission may, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and operational rules, decide to reassign an official from a management position to a non-management function at any time, if it considers this to be in the interest of the service. Directors can therefore be reassigned to a function of ‘principal adviser’. The corresponding non-managerial function for Directors General and Deputy Directors General is ‘adviser hors classe’.

‘Special advisers’ are individuals who -on account of their expertise and qualifications- are given a contract as special adviser and are attached to one of the Commissioners. They can be outside experts or retired (high level) Commission officials, and in the latter case are only entitled to reimbursement of expenses. Special advisers to the Commission are not (or no longer) Commission officials and hence do not exercise managerial functions, nor do they appear in the organisation chart.

| 2. | Persons who occupy a function as ‘principal adviser’ or as ‘adviser hors classe’ feature in the organisation chart. An assignment to these functions can either be for a long or short period and the tasks and responsibilities are defined by the relevant appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Persons who occupy a function as ‘principal adviser’ or as ‘adviser hors classe’ feature in the organisation chart. An assignment to these functions can either be for a long or short period and the tasks and responsibilities are defined by the relevant appointing authority.

| 3. | The Commission agrees that it is desirable that officials to whom such status has been assigned should remain available to serve the institution, unless the interest of the service requires otherwise. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission agrees that it is desirable that officials to whom such status has been assigned should remain available to serve the institution, unless the interest of the service requires otherwise.

| 4. | Mrs Andreasen has not been removed from the organisation chart which is drawn up for information purposes and in any case has no legal status. Her name is included in the most recent version (16 September 2003) of the organisation chart of Directorate General (DG) for Personnel and Administration as well as in the updated Commission Directory recently published on the Commission's intranet ‘IntraComm’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Mrs Andreasen has not been removed from the organisation chart which is drawn up for information purposes and in any case has no legal status. Her name is included in the most recent version (16 September 2003) of the organisation chart of Directorate General (DG) for Personnel and Administration as well as in the updated Commission Directory recently published on the Commission's intranet ‘IntraComm’.

| 5. | ‘Special advisers’ are not officials but staff falling under the scope of the Conditions of Other Servants of the Communities. As indicated under point 1, they are attached to one of the Commissioners and are selected for their expert capabilities to serve the Institution on that basis. The Commission is not aware of any ‘rumours or accusations of arbitrariness’, or of any evidence of arbitrariness in their selection. |
| --- | --- |

5.

‘Special advisers’ are not officials but staff falling under the scope of the Conditions of Other Servants of the Communities. As indicated under point 1, they are attached to one of the Commissioners and are selected for their expert capabilities to serve the Institution on that basis. The Commission is not aware of any ‘rumours or accusations of arbitrariness’, or of any evidence of arbitrariness in their selection.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/39

---

(2004/C 84 E/0043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Risks of hormone therapies

At the beginning of August the British journal The Lancet published findings which demonstrated the existence of a link between certain hormone therapies and breast cancer. The findings were particularly concerned with hormone therapies for problems associated with the menopause or osteoporosis using estrogens and the synthetic hormone tibolon, and with preparations combining estrogens and progestogens.

Moreover, research by the University of Groningen has shown that the use of hormones after the menopause can also increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, whereas previously it was assumed that hormone therapies actually afforded protection against cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis.

What is the Commission doing to protect citizens of the Union and consumers of such products against these recently demonstrated risks, and to inform them of the dangers?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) products are authorised for the treatment of menopausal symptoms. Some products are also authorised for the prevention of osteoporosis.

The increased risk of breast cancer with HRT has been recognised for some time. New data regarding the risks of breast cancer, as well as data suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular disease have recently become available.

A working group on HRT with experts from the Member States, of the Mutual Recognition Facilitation Group (MRFG) has been updating a European ‘core’ Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for the last few years. An SPC has two functions. Firstly it is part of the Marketing Authorisation of a product and secondly it is a communication document to inform healthcare professionals about a particular product and how to use it safely. Because most HRT products are authorised nationally a European ‘core’ SPC was developed. This is used as a template by the Member States as the basis for the national HRT SPCs. The European ‘core’ SPC contains clear warnings about the risks of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Hence these warnings appear in national SPCs. The HRT Working Group of the MRFG meets at the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and takes advice from the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Product's- (CPMP) Pharmacovigilance Working Party.

In light of the new data on the risks of HRT, national competent authorities in the Member States have communicated with healthcare professionals and users of HRT with information about the risks of HRT therapy. At a European level, the EMEA has made available funds for a new CPMP ad-hoc working group on HRT. This working group will build on the work already done by the MRFG Working Group and will advise CPMP what further action, if any, is required to protect the citizens of the Union from the risks of HRT. In addition, the Community under its three consecutive ‘Europe against Cancer’ programs has helped to set up a system of cancer surveillance through the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) as well as a large European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC), which studies among 522 000 volunteers, of which about 320 000 are women, risk factors for cancer related to diet, lifestyle and physical activity. This prospective study is also expected to contribute evidence on the relative risks for breast cancer related to hormone replacement therapy.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/40

---

(2004/C 84 E/0044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

In its answer to my Question E-0520/03 (1) of 13 February 2003 about respect for women's rights in Pakistan, the Council has told me that, so far, not one agreement with a third country in which a human rights clause has been incorporated as an ‘essential element’ has been suspended.

It is true that the EU has in a number of cases where the essential elements of the agreement have been infringed suspended some provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions of the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). What infringements of essential elements took place in these six countries?

In the case of Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995) the signature of the cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights. ‘Human rights’ is of course a broad term. What kind of infringements of human rights were involved in this case in these four countries?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the relevant Council Decisions where are explained the grounds on which the EU decided to suspend certain provisions of the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). The Council always officially informs the President of the European Parliament in writing of Council Decisions to start and end consultations under the Cotonou Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the relevant Council Decisions where are explained the grounds on which the EU decided to suspend certain provisions of the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). The Council always officially informs the President of the European Parliament in writing of Council Decisions to start and end consultations under the Cotonou Agreement.

| 2. | The Honorary Member can find the exact text of these decisions in the following documents:






  — | Council Decision of 18 February 2002 concluding consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The Honorary Member can find the exact text of these decisions in the following documents:

—

Council Decision of 18 February 2002 concluding consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

| — | Council Decision of 14 February 2000 concluding consultations with the Comoros under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention and taking appropriate measures, |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision of 14 February 2000 concluding consultations with the Comoros under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention and taking appropriate measures,

| — | Council Decision of 25 June 2001 concluding consultations with Côte d'Ivoire under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision of 25 June 2001 concluding consultations with Côte d'Ivoire under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement

| — | Council Decision of 9 April 2001 concluding consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision of 9 April 2001 concluding consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

| — | Council Decision of 29 January 2001 concluding the consultation procedure with Haiti under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision of 29 January 2001 concluding the consultation procedure with Haiti under Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

| — | Council Decision of 25 March 2002 concluding consultations with Liberia under Articles 96 and 97 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision of 25 March 2002 concluding consultations with Liberia under Articles 96 and 97 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement.

| 3. | For the other cases mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council recalls that the European Parliament shared the Council concern about human rights. This concern was at the original of the delay in the signature of the co-operation agreements. |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the other cases mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council recalls that the European Parliament shared the Council concern about human rights. This concern was at the original of the delay in the signature of the co-operation agreements.

| 4. | The Council underlines that when speaking of the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Union refers to a well identified set of obligations which allows action not only at general level but also with reference to specific or individual cases, whenever requested and possible. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council underlines that when speaking of the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Union refers to a well identified set of obligations which allows action not only at general level but also with reference to specific or individual cases, whenever requested and possible.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/41

---

(2004/C 84 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet

Each Community Member State has a multiannual guideline programme establishing the objectives to be met in cutting down its fishing fleet, so as to suit the fishing effort to existing resources. In December 1997, the fourth generation of MGPs was adopted, establishing the objectives for 1997-2001. This period was extended to the end of 2002. From 1 July 2002, subsidies for building fishing boats are no longer possible in those segments of MGP IV failing to respect their objectives by that date.

Now that the MGPs are no longer in force, can the Commission provide details of those Member States which have not yet met the objectives laid down in these programmes, in all fleet segments, specifying the extent to which each Member State has met the objectives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

To monitor implementation of the provisions banning public aid for fleet segments not meeting their targets from 1 July 2002, the Commission delivered a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002 (1). This report identifies those segments that had not met their targets by that date.

Following completion of the fourth-generation guidance programmes (MAGP IV), the Commission also delivered an annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2002 (2), which describes the results for each Member State as regards compliance with the objectives laid down by the programmes for all fleet segments.

Copies of these two reports will be sent to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 483 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 508 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/42

---

(2004/C 84 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Specific programme for research

In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006), (1), it is said that in the course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent of the donors has been obtained.

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the Council confirm:

| — | who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested? |
| --- | --- |

—

who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

| — | how will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development? |
| --- | --- |

—

how will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council attaches great importance to respecting fundamental ethical principles in the implementation of the specific research programme referred to by the Honourable Member. In this respect, Council Decision 2002/834/EC of 30 September 2002 (2) stipulates that, ‘inter alia’, ‘Where appropriate, participants in research projects must seek the approval of the relevant national or local ethics committees prior to the start of the RTD activities. An ethical review will be implemented systematically by the Commission for proposals dealing with ethically sensitive issues, in particular proposals involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells’.

Regarding the Commission proposal for amending the specific programme mentioned in the question, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the conclusions adopted following its meeting held on 3 December 2003, where the President, at the end of the discussion, concluded that no agreement could be reached either on the Commission proposal as amended in the light of the opinion given by the European Parliament in November or on the Presidency text put forward for the occasion.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 390 final.

(2)  OJ L 294, 29.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/43

---

(2004/C 84 E/0047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

Mr Jibrin Babaji, a Nigerian citizen aged 20, has been found guilty of sexual relations with three underage boys and has been sentenced to death by stoning. The sentence was handed down on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 by an Islamic court in Bauchi state, under the Sharia penal code.

Does the Council have further information on the matter? What measures does it intend to take, in line with the European positions in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide, to ensure that this death sentence is not executed?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council underlines that the EU and its Member States continuously act in international fora, such as the Commission on Human Rights, with a view to favoring the adoption of legal instruments condemning capital punishment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council underlines that the EU and its Member States continuously act in international fora, such as the Commission on Human Rights, with a view to favoring the adoption of legal instruments condemning capital punishment.

| 2. | Regarding the specific problem mentioned in the question, the abolition of the death penalty in general and death by stoning in particular remains a subject of dialogue with Nigeria. The EU Heads of Mission in Abuja have been asked to make representations regarding the sentence of death by stoning passed on Jibril Babaji, as well as the sentences against Fatima Ousmane and Amadou Brahim, which have just come to our attention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regarding the specific problem mentioned in the question, the abolition of the death penalty in general and death by stoning in particular remains a subject of dialogue with Nigeria. The EU Heads of Mission in Abuja have been asked to make representations regarding the sentence of death by stoning passed on Jibril Babaji, as well as the sentences against Fatima Ousmane and Amadou Brahim, which have just come to our attention.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/43

---

(2004/C 84 E/0048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   European market in car insurance

Although the common market has been developing for some time and in certain sectors has been completed, the internal market in car insurance has a long way to go, in particular as regards third-party insurance. For example, it is still impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides.

| 1. | What initiatives has the Commission promoted to harmonise the internal market in car insurance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What initiatives has the Commission promoted to harmonise the internal market in car insurance?

| 2. | In view of the fact that it is impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides, what steps will the Commission take to remedy this anomaly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of the fact that it is impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides, what steps will the Commission take to remedy this anomaly?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/44

---

(2004/C 84 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Third-party insurance for cars and the new Code

In Italy the recent introduction of new sanctions in connection with the Highway Code has radically altered the behaviour of Italian drivers and drastically reduced the number of accidents reported.

Four consumers' associations in Italy (Aduc, Codacons, Adusbef and Federconsumatori) point out that the sharp fall in the number of claims (which insurers say are the cause of the rising cost of third-party insurance) should lead to a fall in the cost of car insurance. The provisions of the new Highway Code have cut the number of accidents by 20 % and the number of people injured by 40 %, which has eased the burden on insurance companies.

However, illogically, the costs of third-party insurance in Italy continue to rise and average rates in other European countries are 20 % lower.

In the light of this, does not the Commission consider that the rise in (compulsory) third-party insurance premiums in Italy is unjustified?

Does it intend to try to persuade the Italian government to take urgent measures to lower the price of third-party insurance?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3014/03 and E-3015/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answers to written questions P-0592/02 from Ms Thyssen (1), E-1522/03 from the Honourable Member (2) and E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03 from Mr Staes (3). These replies continue to reflect the Commission's position.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 47.

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 128.

(3)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 405.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/44

---

(2004/C 84 E/0050)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3036/03

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Tackling hunger in the world

Will the Council state what its priorities are during the Italian Presidency to tackle continuing and high levels of hunger and poverty in the world and to eradicate disease among young people?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council shares the concerns of the Honourable Member as regards development cooperation with the main objective of reducing poverty with a view to its eventual eradication. The Council confirms its commitment to pursue this objective in the coming months and years, particularly by supporting sustainable economic, social and environmental development and by gradually integrating developing countries into the world economy. The Council recalls, on this occasion the importance of food security and sustainable rural development as one of the six priority areas of the European Community's development assistance activities.

The fight against poverty is one of the development objectives defined in the Millennium Declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2000, which aimed to halve by 2015 poverty, hunger and diseases linked with poverty such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Community development cooperation policy is therefore closely linked to commitments made at international level.

The Council recalls that it approved the conclusions of the United Nations Conference in Monterrey. At the Barcelona European Council in March 2002 the Member States committed themselves collectively to increase their official development aid, which should reach 0,39 % of the GNP of the Member States by 2006, which would be a first significant step on the road to achieving the United Nations target of devoting 0,7 % of GNP to official development aid. It should be noted that the European Union and its Member States already finance more than 50 % of total development aid.

In the Council conclusions of May 2002, the European Union agreed that a substantial share of this increase in the volume of ODA (official development aid) should go to support social development in developing countries, with special emphasis on improving health and education, including the three major transmissible diseases.

Finally, in the third Committee of UNGA 58 which started on 6 October 2003, the EU had prepared a resolution on the rights of the child which addressed the issues of child poverty and child health.

In the current draft resolution the EU recognises that strengthened availability and effective allocation of resources are required in order to ensure that all the development and poverty reduction goals as set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, are realised within their time framework, and to promote the enjoyment of the rights of the child.

The EU is also seeking in this text to promote the realisation of the highest attainable standard of health through, ‘inter alia’, the development of sustainable health systems and social services paying particular attention to the prevention of disease, malnutrition, disability and infant and child mortality, to prenatal and post-natal health care, to the special needs of adolescents, to reproductive and sexual health and to threats from substance abuse and violence, and ensuring access to such systems and services. Mention is also made of the need to ensure the effective prevention of HIV infections, providing support and rehabilitation to children and their families affected by HIV/AIDS and protecting children affected by HIV/AIDS from all forms of discrimination, stigma, abuse and neglect.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/45

---

(2004/C 84 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Serious defects in Greek ambulances

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly brought up in the Greek parliament the question of the provision of ambulances belonging to the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB), the specifications which should be met, transparency in the choice of the vehicle makes bought and the equipment that they should have in order to be able to carry out their difficult tasks.

Workers at EKAB have on many occasions pointed out that many of these ambulances lack the requisite portable artificial respiration equipment (which is designed to give the first supplies of oxygen to an injured person), as well as another acutely essential piece of equipment, the defibrillator, which ought to be in every ambulance to administer repeated electrical shocks to a patient who has had a heart attack.

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly pointed out (through the social issues coordinator responsible for this area, our former European Parliament colleague Nikitas Kaklamanis) the problem of lack of transparency in the choice of ambulances makes bought from time to time (thanks to the second and third Community support frameworks).

Could the Commission set out the exact total amounts which have been made available by the EU from 1994 until the present, and indicate precisely which operational programmes (either via the CSF or Community initiatives) apply to the provision of ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units? Has the Commission been informed of the above-mentioned defects in ambulance equipment? What is the Commission's position with regard to the allegations by workers at EKAB that for a city such as Athens (with five million residents) there are only 72 ambulances, amounting to one ambulance for every 70 000 city residents; hence the recent incident (on 30 September 2003) of the injured motorcyclist in Athens who waited for two hours in a heap on the road for an ambulance to arrive?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is informed of the following, as regards the fourth paragraph of his question:

| 1. | According to the Greek authorities, the following ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units have been co-funded by the EU between 1994 and 2003:






  — | CSF II (operational programme ‘Health and welfare’):






  — | 1997-1998: 60 medical care mobile units - approximately EUR 4 798 000 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

According to the Greek authorities, the following ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units have been co-funded by the EU between 1994 and 2003:

—

CSF II (operational programme ‘Health and welfare’):

—

1997-1998: 60 medical care mobile units - approximately EUR 4 798 000

| — | 2001: 116 ambulances - approximately EUR 4 672 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

2001: 116 ambulances - approximately EUR 4 672 000

| — | 1994-1999: five helicopters - approximately EUR 17 757 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

1994-1999: five helicopters - approximately EUR 17 757 000

| — | CSF III (operational programme ‘Health and welfare’):






  — | 2004: 100 ambulances - approximately EUR 5 391 000 |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

CSF III (operational programme ‘Health and welfare’):

—

2004: 100 ambulances - approximately EUR 5 391 000

| — | 2004: 25 medical care mobile units — approximately EUR 2 578 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

2004: 25 medical care mobile units — approximately EUR 2 578 000

These procurements are to be completed by the Summer of 2004.

Between 1999 and mid-2004, the EU will have co-funded the provision of ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units with a total cost of EUR 35 159 000 (EU contribution: EUR 26 397 000).

| 2. | According to the Greek authorities the situation of the equipment of the ambulances and mobile units is as follows:






  — | The two outstanding procurements to be completed by mid-2004 are based on the CEN, EN1789:1999, EN1865:1999, type Β (ambulances) and type C (mobile units) standards of the European specifications. They will therefore be fully equipped. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

According to the Greek authorities the situation of the equipment of the ambulances and mobile units is as follows:

—

The two outstanding procurements to be completed by mid-2004 are based on the CEN, EN1789:1999, EN1865:1999, type Β (ambulances) and type C (mobile units) standards of the European specifications. They will therefore be fully equipped.

| — | The CSF II co-funded ambulances and mobile units are considered, apart from the absence of defibrillators in the ambulances, adequately equipped. The accompanying Annex describes in detail the equipment of each ambulance and mobile unit. As far as the absence of defibrillators in ambulances is concerned, the Board of Administration of the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAV) has decided at its 15th meeting, on 27 November 2003, to furnish up to the mid-2004 each ambulance with one defibrillator. |
| --- | --- |

—

The CSF II co-funded ambulances and mobile units are considered, apart from the absence of defibrillators in the ambulances, adequately equipped. The accompanying Annex describes in detail the equipment of each ambulance and mobile unit. As far as the absence of defibrillators in ambulances is concerned, the Board of Administration of the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAV) has decided at its 15th meeting, on 27 November 2003, to furnish up to the mid-2004 each ambulance with one defibrillator.

| 3. | Regarding the question on the number of available ambulances/mobile units and their adequacy in covering the needs of Athens (or any other part of Greece), the Honourable Member is informed that this is exclusively a responsibility of the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Regarding the question on the number of available ambulances/mobile units and their adequacy in covering the needs of Athens (or any other part of Greece), the Honourable Member is informed that this is exclusively a responsibility of the Member State.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/47

---

(2004/C 84 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3050/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   European Court of Human Rights judgment against Turkey

On 31 July 2003, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered a second judgment against Turkey for violation of human rights in Cyprus. The judgment on violation of the right to respect for the home followed on from an application by two Greek Cypriots, Eugenia Michaelidou and Michael Tymvios, who have been unable to travel to their home since Turkey unlawfully occupied Northern Cyprus. According to the Court, this is a manifest violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Turkey has been admitted to attend the current IGC in Rome as an observer and candidate country.

Does the Council consider it reasonable for a candidate country which manifestly and repeatedly violates the principles of the ECHR to be admitted to the IGC as an observer? Does not the IGC, which, it should be noted, is discussing the incorporation of citizens' basic rights into the European Constitution, lose democratic legitimacy by allowing a state which violates human rights to be an observer?

How will the Council make sure that, during accession negotiations in subsequent years, Turkey does not simply pay lip service to human rights compliance, but, rather, is actually guided by it in politics?

Will the Council put pressure on Turkey to ensure, in response to this specific judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, that the judgments do not remain a dead letter?

In other words, will the Council put pressure on Turkey to restore the rights of Eugenia Michaelidou and Michael Tymvios?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | As pointed out by the Honourable Member and also noted in the Commission's regular report 2003 on Turkey's progress towards accession, Turkey still has a problematic record with regard to execution of judgements by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The regular report 2003 indicates that the ECtHR since October 2002 has delivered 92 judgements concerning Turkey, and that in 43 cases the Court found that Turkey had violated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). |
| --- | --- |

1.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member and also noted in the Commission's regular report 2003 on Turkey's progress towards accession, Turkey still has a problematic record with regard to execution of judgements by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The regular report 2003 indicates that the ECtHR since October 2002 has delivered 92 judgements concerning Turkey, and that in 43 cases the Court found that Turkey had violated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

| 2. | The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. This is reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the relevant priority which requests Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including respect of the judgements of the ECtHR’. The Council raises this point with Turkey on any suitable occasion, in particular in the context of political dialogue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. This is reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the relevant priority which requests Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including respect of the judgements of the ECtHR’. The Council raises this point with Turkey on any suitable occasion, in particular in the context of political dialogue.

| 3. | Specific action in respect of the judgement referred to by the Honourable Member is not being considered at this stage. It should be recalled that, as decided by the Copenhagen European Council, accession negotiations with Turkey will be opened if the European Council in December 2004 decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, which require in particular that democracy, the rule of law and human rights are guaranteed in the country. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Specific action in respect of the judgement referred to by the Honourable Member is not being considered at this stage. It should be recalled that, as decided by the Copenhagen European Council, accession negotiations with Turkey will be opened if the European Council in December 2004 decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, which require in particular that democracy, the rule of law and human rights are guaranteed in the country.

| 4. | Finally, it is not for the Council to comment on the Thessaloniki European Council's decision to admit Turkey as an observer to the IGC. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, it is not for the Council to comment on the Thessaloniki European Council's decision to admit Turkey as an observer to the IGC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/48

---

(2004/C 84 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3053/03

by María Valenciano Martinez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   HIV/AIDS in China

On 8 September 2003 Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report entitled Locked Doors: People Living with HIV/AIDS in China, which describes how discrimination, lack of information, cover-ups, and lack of treatment for many patients are causing the spread of HIV/AIDS in China.

On 30 September 2003 the Spanish daily El Pais published the dramatic story of Zhang Xiaqing, an HIV-positive 11-year old, who contracted the virus from a blood transfusion in 1995 at the age of nine. His parents cannot afford treatment and he has been refused admission to school. His case is one of more than 250 000 according to Beijing — but more than one million according to organisations working to combat the disease — where infections were caused during the 1990s as a result of blood-purchasing networks in Henan province.

Although China has admitted the blood transfusions scandal and taken a number of measures, according to HRW it still allows provincial and local authorities to cover up the situation, preventing NGOs and journalists from visiting people with HIV/AIDS. According to the report, no officials have been prosecuted for the scandal, although some of those who tried to reveal its existence have been arrested for breaching state secrets.

The United Nations has warned that 10 million people will be infected by 2010 unless urgent measures are taken.

Will the Commission include on the agenda for the Fifth EU-China Summit, to be held at the end of October, the question of respect for the human rights of these sick and abandoned people and attempt to ensure at least that cases are brought to court in order to establish responsibility so that compensation can be paid to these persons, who will otherwise be inexorably condemned to suffer and die for want of treatment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

As stated in its recent Communication on EU-China relations, the Commission believes that the current spread of AIDS in the country poses a serious threat to China's long-term development and accordingly requires determined action. The Commission itself is engaged in efforts to combat the epidemic through its financing, from 1997 to the present day, of a new vaccines testing programme coordinated by the University of Regensburg's Institute for Medical Microbiology.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the situation of AIDS sufferers in China. At the 6th EU-China Summit in Beijing on 30 October, the Union once again raised the general issue of human rights. However, the bilateral dialogue on human rights conducted by the EU with China since 1996, whose next session is in Beijing on 25/26 November, seems the most appropriate forum for tackling the subject of AIDS victims.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/48

---

(2004/C 84 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Cost of Turkey joining the EU

The Osteuropa-Institut, the Munich-based Institute for East European Studies, estimates that Turkey's membership of the European Union would cost EUR 5,2 billion a year at the start of EU membership. The amount would increase to EUR 14 billion a year by the time Turkey was fully integrated into the Union.

Has the Commission seen the preliminary results of this study?

Has the Commission made its own calculations of the cost of Turkey joining the EU? If so, what were its findings? How do the costs of Turkey's membership compare with those for the ten new accession States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the study to which the Honourable Member refers but has not seen the detailed results. Such estimates depend on a large number of hypotheses, such as the timing of possible accession, rates of economic development and the outcome of accession negotiations. The Commission considers that it is not possible to define in detail a number of hypotheses which would be necessary for any such calculation.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/49

---

(2004/C 84 E/0055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) and Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Vehicle emissions outside of the test cycle

Pollution readings carried out by the German Federal Environmental Agency have shown that cars usually considered to be particularly environmentally friendly only keep within the EU's strict exhaust emission limits up to a speed of 120 km/h. Beyond that, however, emission levels rise many times over, proving that the cars concerned are not so environmentally friendly after all.

Is the Commission aware of this phenomenon?

Does the Commission intend to take account of emissions outside of the test cycle in its anticipated proposal for a future Euro V category of exhaust emission limits for cars, and will it restrict the extent to which the applicable limits are exceeded?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware that some motor vehicles can modulate the emission performance in certain driving conditions that are not covered by the present type-approval emissions test.

Emissions outside the test cycle are one of the issues on the agenda of the working group on Euro V standards that has been set up under the Motor Vehicles Emissions Group.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/49

---

(2004/C 84 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3104/03

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Funding EQUAL projects and sexual orientation discrimination

Article 13 of the EC Treaty, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 1 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. At Community level there is an integrated strategy to combat discrimination and social exclusion. Focusing on the labour market, EQUAL forms part of that strategy. Member States shall formulate their strategy for EQUAL on the basis of thematic fields in the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy. Within these fields Member States shall ensure that their proposals principally benefit those subject to the main forms of discrimination (based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) and inequality.

We are informed that under the current EQUAL programme, only four partnerships out of 1 400 are related to sexual orientation discrimination. Could the Council inform us whether this information is correct?

Could the Council inform us whether all Member States have included sexual orientation discrimination in the national call for proposals under the current EQUAL programme? If not, could the Council give us an explanation for these omissions by the individual Member States?

The next round of EQUAL will be launched in spring 2004. Could the Council inform us whether all Member States, including the accession countries, intend to explicitly mention in their national call for proposals discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation? If not, what action is the Council prepared to undertake to increase the number of applications focusing on sexual orientation?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The EQUAL Initiative is implemented in the framework of the Structural Funds Regulations and, more specifically, through the European Social Fund.
  The Council would draw the Honourable Members' attention to the fact that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the administration of those funds and therefore the Community initiatives is the shared responsibility of the European Commission and the Member States' governments working in close cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EQUAL Initiative is implemented in the framework of the Structural Funds Regulations and, more specifically, through the European Social Fund.

The Council would draw the Honourable Members' attention to the fact that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the administration of those funds and therefore the Community initiatives is the shared responsibility of the European Commission and the Member States' governments working in close cooperation.

| 2. | In accordance with the guidelines and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Commission, and not the Council, is responsible for monitoring, implementing and evaluating the interventions covered by EQUAL. Therefore, the Council is not in a position to confirm whether the information reported by the Honourable Members of the EP is correct and would suggest that they forward their question directly to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In accordance with the guidelines and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Commission, and not the Council, is responsible for monitoring, implementing and evaluating the interventions covered by EQUAL. Therefore, the Council is not in a position to confirm whether the information reported by the Honourable Members of the EP is correct and would suggest that they forward their question directly to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/50

---

(2004/C 84 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State

Knowing that:

| — | On 10 October 2003 the British daily newspaper ‘The Guardian’ published an article entitled ‘We have faith in condoms’ stating that Catholic Church leaders/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State are warning against using condoms to prevent AIDS, claiming that the HIV virus can pass through the thick mesh of rubber in condoms, hence making them useless for protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

On 10 October 2003 the British daily newspaper ‘The Guardian’ published an article entitled ‘We have faith in condoms’ stating that Catholic Church leaders/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State are warning against using condoms to prevent AIDS, claiming that the HIV virus can pass through the thick mesh of rubber in condoms, hence making them useless for protection;

| — | The article announced that the BBC's Panorama programme, due to be televised the following Sunday, would broadcast an interview with the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who told British journalists ‘The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than a spermatozoon and can therefore easily pass through the “net” that is formed by the condom ... These margins of uncertainty should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The article announced that the BBC's Panorama programme, due to be televised the following Sunday, would broadcast an interview with the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who told British journalists ‘The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than a spermatozoon and can therefore easily pass through the “net” that is formed by the condom ... These margins of uncertainty should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger’;

| — | In response to these statements the World Health Organisation said ‘These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million ...’ |
| --- | --- |

—

In response to these statements the World Health Organisation said ‘These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million ...’

| — | The anti-condom campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State is being conducted in particular in third-world countries devastated by AIDS, where it has substantial power over the distribution of medicine and health-care supplies and where the campaign is likely to have catastrophic effects. |
| --- | --- |

—

The anti-condom campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State is being conducted in particular in third-world countries devastated by AIDS, where it has substantial power over the distribution of medicine and health-care supplies and where the campaign is likely to have catastrophic effects.

In view of the European Union's institutional and diplomatic relations with the Holy See,

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it considers that the statements made by leaders of the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State regarding condoms are correct according to the scientific information it has as its disposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the statements made by leaders of the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State regarding condoms are correct according to the scientific information it has as its disposal;

| — | what measures in the form of information, prevention, sanctions and diplomatic moves it intends to promote in response to these claims and in order to oppose the irresponsible campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State, which threatens to nullify the European and international policies to combat the spread of AIDS, the deaths caused by it and other sexually transmitted diseases in Europe and worldwide; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures in the form of information, prevention, sanctions and diplomatic moves it intends to promote in response to these claims and in order to oppose the irresponsible campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State, which threatens to nullify the European and international policies to combat the spread of AIDS, the deaths caused by it and other sexually transmitted diseases in Europe and worldwide;

| — | whether it considers that there is an urgent need to revise Article 51 of the draft European Constitution in order to ensure that ‘recognising their identity and their specific contribution’ does not entail having to accept as ‘scientific’ statements dictated by prejudice? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that there is an urgent need to revise Article 51 of the draft European Constitution in order to ensure that ‘recognising their identity and their specific contribution’ does not entail having to accept as ‘scientific’ statements dictated by prejudice?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

On the basis of research conducted during the last 15 years and partly funded by the Community, it can be claimed that condoms, when used properly, are an effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission, with an efficacy close to 100 %. A press release on this subject has recently been published by the Commission (1).

These findings are consistent with those obtained by leading international bodies in the field of health such as the World Health Organisation and United States National Institutes of Health.

In terms of information and prevention in response to the mentioned claims, Directorate General (DG) Development and DG Research stated in the above-mentioned press release of 20 October 2003 the Commission's position and the dangers of the claims made by the Holy See officials. The Commission is concerned about the potentially negative input of these claims.

The Community has been active in the promotion of access to effective prevention methods since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In 2000, the Community developed a broader, more strategic approach towards confronting HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The consultations around the High Level Round Table held in September 2000 led to the ‘Programme for Action: Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction’ (2), which established a broad and coherent Community response for 2001-2006. The Communication's ground-breaking strategy builds on the experience of a coherent comprehensive approach, the principle of a country-led development process — ownership — and the interrelationship of health and poverty and its implications for macro-economic policy and development. It incorporates the crucial global elements of partnerships in development, trade and research.

The Commission fails to see any connection between the scope and the breadth of the draft Constitution and the personal opinion of a member of one church.

Article 51 of the draft European Constitution on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations reads as follows:

| 1. | The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

| 2. | The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

| 3. | Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1410|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

(2)  COM(2001) 96 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/52

---

(2004/C 84 E/0058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Illegal imports of textile products from China

On 10 October 2003 the textile workers' union of Barletta (BA) organised a protest against the illegality of Chinese textile imports and called on the European Union to take practical steps to combat such imports.

Can the Council say:

| — | what information it has concerning controls at borders and in Community territory on all forms of illegality (circumvention of the law, tax evasion and counterfeiting of trademarks), compliance with international agreements on imports from non-Community countries, in particular from the Far East, and the payment of customs duty, and what steps it will take to step up these controls; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has concerning controls at borders and in Community territory on all forms of illegality (circumvention of the law, tax evasion and counterfeiting of trademarks), compliance with international agreements on imports from non-Community countries, in particular from the Far East, and the payment of customs duty, and what steps it will take to step up these controls;

| — | what measures it will promote for the introduction into Far Eastern countries of checks on respect for international conventions on human rights, including those dealing with pay conditions for workers? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it will promote for the introduction into Far Eastern countries of checks on respect for international conventions on human rights, including those dealing with pay conditions for workers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The imports the Honourable Member refers to are subject to the same EC rules as any other imports into the EC. At the EU-China Summit held on 30 October 2003 in Beijing, both sides expressed their hope for an early conclusion of a customs co-operation agreement, and looked forward to starting negotiations very soon, with the common aim of concluding the agreement in the first half of 2004. They agreed that such an agreement should cover mutual administrative assistance on customs matters, particularly in the field of combat against commercial frauds including counterfeiting. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The imports the Honourable Member refers to are subject to the same EC rules as any other imports into the EC. At the EU-China Summit held on 30 October 2003 in Beijing, both sides expressed their hope for an early conclusion of a customs co-operation agreement, and looked forward to starting negotiations very soon, with the common aim of concluding the agreement in the first half of 2004. They agreed that such an agreement should cover mutual administrative assistance on customs matters, particularly in the field of combat against commercial frauds including counterfeiting.

| 2. | As for the Honourable Member's second question, the Council is not considering at this stage any further specific measures to promote the respect for international conventions on human rights in Far Eastern countries. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As for the Honourable Member's second question, the Council is not considering at this stage any further specific measures to promote the respect for international conventions on human rights in Far Eastern countries.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/53

---

(2004/C 84 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

At the recent Ecofin Council in Luxembourg 7 October 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein announced that the Commission was against any reduction of VAT on audio recording media and CDs as this might create distortions of competition. A minority of members of the Council were in favour of lower rates.

Against the background of the current discussions in Unesco concerning the creation of an international legal instrument to safeguard cultural diversity will the Council examine whether a reduction of VAT is feasible and desirable for CDs by new artists and/or artists singing in local or regional languages and/or home-grown musicians (irrespective of whether or not they sing in their own language) and/or for certain genres of music? At the opening of the recent Unesco conference, President Ciampi said that Italy advocates the adoption of a legal instrument on cultural diversity, guaranteeing every country the protection of its own historical identity and the uniqueness of its physical and intangible cultural heritage.

Is the Council prepared to authorise some reduced VAT rates for CDs with the specific aim of safeguarding cultural diversity?

If so, what steps will the Council take to bring this about in the near future?

If not, what measures does the Council consider have higher priority in safeguarding cultural diversity?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Commission proposal concerning reduced VAT rates is currently being examined by the Council.

Until those proceedings have been completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Member's questions.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/53

---

(2004/C 84 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Bank accounts and freedom of movement

Is the Commission aware of the tensions that arise between regulations concerning prevention of money laundering and freedom of movement of EU nationals?

It has come to my attention that EU nationals trying to set up a bank account in the UK are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, due to the identification documents required. They are often unable to get a UK bank account because they have no permanent address, and thus no utility bills, and unable to get a permanent address because they have no bank reference. These rules amount to a hidden barrier to the free employment of EU citizens in the UK.

Is there any action the Commission can recommend to assist those facing such difficulties?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of a number of cases where Union nationals who are not resident in the United Kingdom have experienced difficulties in opening a bank account.

Article 3(1) of the anti-money laundering Directive (1) stipulates that banks should identify their customers on the basis of ‘supporting evidence’.

United Kingdom banks are, therefore, obliged under the Directive to know their customer and apply proper customer due diligence procedures. Banks are increasingly punctilious about customer identification as failure to carry out proper anti-money laundering controls can have extremely serious consequences for them. There is, however, no requirement in United Kingdom law that prevents a bank from opening an account for a non-resident customer or a customer who is in the process of changing his country of residence.

United Kingdom banks follow or should follow the Guidance Notes issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group. These set out the recommended procedures to be followed for various account opening situations. The fact that a person arriving to take up residence in the United Kingdom does not yet have a permanent address in the United Kingdom should not preclude the opening of a bank account. The Commission would recommend that persons encountering difficulties in opening an account should make reference to the Guidance Notes.

It must be noted, however, that freedom of contract applies in this area in the United Kingdom and a bank cannot be obliged to establish contractual relations with a customer if it does not wish to do so.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, OJ L 166, 28.6.1991 as amended by Directive 2001/97/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/54

---

(2004/C 84 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3146/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Waterways and cultural tourism between Switzerland and the Adriatic

The Commission has doubtless heard of the plans for the Locarno-Milan-Pavia-Venice waterway, work to reopen which has been launched by the Lombardy Regional Council with the approval of the Piedmont Regional Council and the Swiss Confederation. The programme Interreg III A Italy-Switzerland 2000-2006, which is currently being implemented in respect of designs for the restoration of canal structures, has in fact already been endorsed. This project comprises the renovation of infrastructure and the replacement of the bridges on the Grande and Pavia canals in the Milan region. This work, which has both multifunctional and heritage objectives concerns the oldest navigable canal in Europe (the Naviglio Grande) and the last canal to be built in the Milan region (the Naviglio di Pavia). The latter was the most important work of waterways architecture to be built in Europe in the early 1900s. The total cost of the project is expected to be around EUR 40 million.

| 1. | Could the Commission indicate how much has been allocated to this project under the Interreg ΠΙΑ programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Could the Commission indicate how much has been allocated to this project under the Interreg ΠΙΑ programme?

| 2. | In view of the value to tourism and culture of restoring the navigational link between Sesto Calende and Pavia by way of the canals referred to above, would the Commission not agree with the prime importance of rehabilitating this infrastructure with a view to establishing a navigable route between Locarno and Venice? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of the value to tourism and culture of restoring the navigational link between Sesto Calende and Pavia by way of the canals referred to above, would the Commission not agree with the prime importance of rehabilitating this infrastructure with a view to establishing a navigable route between Locarno and Venice?

| 3. | Does it not consider the construction of waterway infrastructure that is environmentally and landscape-friendly to be equally as important as major road and rail infrastructure projects? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it not consider the construction of waterway infrastructure that is environmentally and landscape-friendly to be equally as important as major road and rail infrastructure projects?

| 4. | Would it be prepared to finance this rehabilitation within the bounds and in the ways set out in the programmes currently running? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Would it be prepared to finance this rehabilitation within the bounds and in the ways set out in the programmes currently running?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The Commission considers that investment in infrastructure for inland navigable waterways of helps to maintain the fluidity of the various modes of transport (river/road, railway and sea) and hence their satisfactory operation. It has part-financed work on navigable waterways, in particular under the Trans-European Networks and the Structural Funds.

The total financial appropriation for the Interreg III A Italy-Switzerland programme is EUR 74 442 644 million. Of this the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will be contributing EUR 2 5 560 000 million.

As regards the environment and protection of nature, the Locarno-Milan ‘cultural tourism’ navigable waterway (Sesto Calende-Lonate Pozzolo stretch) is covered by the above programme (Priority 2 Development of cooperation in land management and conservation of the environmental and cultural heritage, Measure 2.3 Integration and improvement of transport infrastructure and systems), one of whose main purposes is to support alternative means of transport and expand the range of options available for group tourism.

The Italy-Switzerland Programming Committee has approved two projects relating to navigation between Locarno and Milan. The first is a study on the Locarno-Milan route and the second is the actual work to be done on the Sesto Calende-Lonate Pozzolo stretch, which is the part of the route located in the zones covered by the programme. The total cost of the two projects is EUR 1 250 000 and the ERDF contribution EUR 346 500.

The Commission complies with the provisions on management of assistance contained in the Structural Fund Regulations. Thus, the scrutiny, assessment and selection of the actual projects to be included in each programme is entirely a matter for the national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States to act as managing authorities and provide members of the monitoring and steering committees for programmes. The Commission is involved in programming only at the general level and in the committees has solely an advisory function. The correct selection procedures must be observed for projects and they must meet the eligibility criteria set in the programme.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/55

---

(2004/C 84 E/0062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Alleged violation of Community company law by Telecom Italia in the Telekom Serbia affair

In addition to having been shown to be extremely prejudicial to Italy, Telecom Italia's acquisition of a 29 % stake in Telekom Serbia would seem to have been carried out in violation of EU company law with regard to the responsibility of directors vis-à-vis shareholders in joint stock companies. The board of directors, which was responsible for the acquisition, is in fact guilty of having concluded harmful negotiations, while being fully aware of having caused serious losses and of having failed to take the necessary steps to assess such losses correctly. The shares were bought at a price much higher than their actual value and with no consideration for the risk involved in investing in a country with a very low average income (EUR 1 900), a very high inflation rate and a non-convertible currency, and which is one of the 21 countries in which there is a danger of instability. A 16 % penalty and a commission of around EUR 15 000 were paid to the British intermediary. The shares themselves were sold two years later, devalued by more than 50 % and representing a loss to the Italian treasury evaluated at 99,1 % of the purchase price, i.e. EUR 450 million. One of the many anomalies in this transaction is the fact that the chairman and assistant director of the Stet (run by Telecom Italia), who were formerly in charge, firmly opposed the transaction. Preference was given to private trading over the normal procurement contract procedure. The matter was not treated with all the necessary diligence to be expected in such a major transaction. A task force inside Telecom Italia concluded the negotiations instead of Stet International, the parent company.

In the light of the above considerations and the principles on which the twelve company law directives are based, as well as Article 14 of the proposal for a fifth directive (1) and the Commission communication (2) on modernising company law, will the Commission state:

| 1. | whether it does not consider that the transaction described above constitutes an infringement of the principles and standards relating to the responsibility of directors in terms of transparency and protection of shareholders' rights? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it does not consider that the transaction described above constitutes an infringement of the principles and standards relating to the responsibility of directors in terms of transparency and protection of shareholders' rights?

| 2. | whether it does not consider that, in this particular case, the Italian Government of that period bears some responsibility? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it does not consider that, in this particular case, the Italian Government of that period bears some responsibility?

| 3. | whether it has conducted a thorough investigation into this case, or intends to do so, within the limits of its powers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it has conducted a thorough investigation into this case, or intends to do so, within the limits of its powers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

In answer to the three questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to make the following remarks:

| — | The existing company law directives, to which the Honourable Member refers, contain very few provisions on liabilities or sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

—

The existing company law directives, to which the Honourable Member refers, contain very few provisions on liabilities or sanctions.

| — | The few provisions which do exist in this area deal, for the most part, with issues relating to the disclosure of certain information, particularly financial information (annual accounts and consolidated accounts). None of the details given in the question asked by the Honourable Member would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transaction described infringes the provisions in the company law directives relating to the disclosure of certain information. |
| --- | --- |

—

The few provisions which do exist in this area deal, for the most part, with issues relating to the disclosure of certain information, particularly financial information (annual accounts and consolidated accounts). None of the details given in the question asked by the Honourable Member would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transaction described infringes the provisions in the company law directives relating to the disclosure of certain information.

| — | Two company law directives contain provisions urging the Member States to at least lay down rules governing the civil liability of members of the administrative or management bodies in respect of misconduct on their part in preparing and implementing certain transactions, i.e. company mergers (third directive (3)) and the division of companies (sixth directive (4)). Since the transaction described by the Honourable Member was a simple acquisition, neither of these two directives is applicable to it. |
| --- | --- |

—

Two company law directives contain provisions urging the Member States to at least lay down rules governing the civil liability of members of the administrative or management bodies in respect of misconduct on their part in preparing and implementing certain transactions, i.e. company mergers (third directive (3)) and the division of companies (sixth directive (4)). Since the transaction described by the Honourable Member was a simple acquisition, neither of these two directives is applicable to it.

| — | In 1972, the Commission presented a proposal for a fifth company law directive relating to the structure of public limited companies and the powers and obligations of their organs. Although it was discussed over many years and amended several times, no agreement could be reached on this proposal and it was eventually withdrawn by the Commission in December 2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

In 1972, the Commission presented a proposal for a fifth company law directive relating to the structure of public limited companies and the powers and obligations of their organs. Although it was discussed over many years and amended several times, no agreement could be reached on this proposal and it was eventually withdrawn by the Commission in December 2001.

| — | In view of the foregoing, it would appear that the existing company law directives contain no rules relating to the liability of administrators which would have been breached by the transaction described by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the foregoing, it would appear that the existing company law directives contain no rules relating to the liability of administrators which would have been breached by the transaction described by the Honourable Member.

| — | Secondly, with regard to whether the Italian Government of that period bears some responsibility, the Commission would point out that it is not for it to comment on whether or not the government of a Member State bears political responsibility in a particular case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, with regard to whether the Italian Government of that period bears some responsibility, the Commission would point out that it is not for it to comment on whether or not the government of a Member State bears political responsibility in a particular case.

| — | Finally, as regards the possibility of a thorough investigation into this case, the Commission can confirm that it has not conducted such an investigation, and has no intention of doing so, given that there is nothing in the information brought to its attention to suggest that there has been any breach of the Community rules on company law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, as regards the possibility of a thorough investigation into this case, the Commission can confirm that it has not conducted such an investigation, and has no intention of doing so, given that there is nothing in the information brought to its attention to suggest that there has been any breach of the Community rules on company law.

---

(1)  COM(90)629, OJ C 7, 11.1.1991, p. 4.

(2)  COM(2003)284.

(3)  Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, OJ L 295, 20.10.1978.

(4)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 concerning the division of public limited liability companies, OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/57

---

(2004/C 84 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/03

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   North Korean refugees

The enforced repatriation of North Korean refugees in China has been brought to my attention. Some of the individuals who are being repatriated face the real risk of detention and torture in North Korea.

This is concerning in view of Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which says that a state shall not return a refugee to a situation of serious risk.

What is the Commission's policy with regard to relations with North Korea and what can the Commission do to ensure that North Korean refugees in China are not forced to return to North Korea when it might be unsafe for them to do so?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/57

---

(2004/C 84 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3333/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject:   North Korean refugees in China

Is the Commission aware of the current situation in China of North Korean refugees being deported back to the DPRK?

What measures are being taken by the Commission to address this state of affairs? Has it raised this issue with the Chinese government and reminded them of their obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on the status of refugees?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3214/03 and P-3333/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2003)

North Korea is currently a major concern for the international community including the Union. The Commission has various channels to meet representatives of the North Korean Government and to put forward its concerns. Human rights issues, including the situation of North Korean refugees on the border with China, are systematically raised during these regular political contacts. It has expressed to the North Korean authorities its concerns about the treatment of these people once returned by China to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Commission urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental rights of these citizens.

At the recent session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights in Geneva (UNHCR), the Union tabled a resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK. This was adopted by the UNHCR on 16 April 2003 and included a mention of the North Korean refugees in China.

The Union has consistently, within its political dialogue with China, expressed concern about the forcible repatriations of North Korean asylum — seekers to the DPRK. The issue has also been addressed within the Union — China Human Rights Dialogue. The Union will again raise the matter during the upcoming round of this dialogue, on 27/28 November 2003 in Beijing, China.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/58

---

(2004/C 84 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

Plans by some Member States to market their own state lottery tickets in other Member States and in non-EU countries presuppose a change in the nature of such export transactions, hitherto deemed to be illegal.

Some of these lotteries offer very attractive prizes, which is why citizens in other Member States seek to buy tickets for them in their own countries.

Can the Commission say which Community rules could be applied to the free marketing of state lottery tickets throughout the EU and what could be done to overcome the problem posed by the fact that the sale of lottery tickets outside the issuing Member State is currently considered illegal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

According to the judgement of the Court of Justice, marketing of a state lottery should be examined under Article 49 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services): in the Schindler case (C-275/92), the Court ruled in fact that the offer into a Member State of advertisements and tickets of a lottery operated in another Member State relates to a ‘service’ within the meaning of the EC Treaty.

It is not entirely clear whether it refers to restrictions from the country of origin to the export of national lottery tickets (in this case, it might be useful to make also reference, by analogy, to the Court decision in the Alpine case, C-34/93, concerning financial services) and/or to restrictions from a recipient country to the import of foreign lottery tickets (which was the case in the Schindler case).

A complete legal assessment of the issue can be carried out only on a case by case basis, according to the specific circumstances of each situation, however, it can be noted that the existing jurisprudence does not suggest, as the Honourable Member implies, that such activities would necessarily be illegal.

From a general point of view, it is true that the Court has recognised, in the Schindler case, that national authorities could have a degree of latitude to impose restrictions on the sale of lottery tickets issued by another country to protect consumers and, more generally, in the light of the specific social and cultural features of each Member State, to maintain order in society, as regards the manner in which lotteries are operated, the size of the stakes, and the allocation of the profits they yield.

However, it has to be considered that in that case the relevant national authority did not operate a national lottery and applied this ban to all such services in a non-discriminatory fashion. Moreover, the Court has recently refined its doctrine both in the Gambelli case (C-243/01), where it has stated that restrictions in the area of gambling must serve to limit such activities in a consistent and systematic manner, and in the Lindman case (C-42/02), where it has clarified the need for a Member State to demonstrate the appropriateness and proportionality of such restrictive measures.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/59

---

(2004/C 84 E/0066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries

Following extensive research, the Environmental Justice Foundation has concluded that the high levels of bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries are causing ecological degradation on a global scale. According to the FAO, shrimp fisheries alone are responsible for one third of the world's discarded catch, despite producing less than 2 % of seafood. Although shrimp fisheries are particularly non-selective, the issue of bycatch is not limited to these fisheries. Millions of tonnes of bycatch are caught by a variety of fishing methods every year, with trawlers, gillnets and longlines being responsible for a leading share. Left unmanaged, these fisheries will unquestionably lead to a decline in marine biodiversity and productivity, along with increased unemployment and poverty in coastal areas. In 1994, the United Nations General Assembly stated that ‘the issue of bycatch and discards in fishing operations warrants serious attention by the international community,’ yet insufficient action has been taken to resolve this over-exploitation. In order to address the issue of bycatch on a global level, EJF recommends the adoption of an ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’ under the auspices of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. EJF would like the EU to take the lead in calling for this IPOA at the next viable opportunity. Given that the EU has recently reformed the CFP to prioritise conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, such a proposal would be in line with current European concerns. An IPOA would not only assist the EU in addressing its own bycatch levels (including those associated with long-distance fleets), but would also push forward international policy in terms of reducing wastage from fisheries.

| 1. | What EU initiatives currently address bycatch reduction (rather than solely reduction in discards) in European waters, and bycatch reduction in long-distance fleets in third-country waters? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What EU initiatives currently address bycatch reduction (rather than solely reduction in discards) in European waters, and bycatch reduction in long-distance fleets in third-country waters?

| 2. | How does the EU monitor bycatch levels and the impacts of bycatch on marine ecosystems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the EU monitor bycatch levels and the impacts of bycatch on marine ecosystems?

| 3. | Is the EU prepared to take a lead in calling for a UN FAO ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the EU prepared to take a lead in calling for a UN FAO ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the serious problem caused by high levels of by-catch in certain fisheries and the associated decline in marine biodiversity and productivity. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern and agrees on the urgent need to address the problem at a global level.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) gives priority to conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) in the reformed CFP envisages ‘specific measures to reduce the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and non-target species’, as well as ‘establishing incentives, including those of an economic nature, to promote more selective or low impact fishing’.

The common fisheries policy includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce by-catches by its own fishing fleet.

These include:

| — | the Action Plan on discards (2). This Action Plan deals with the problem of discarding of fish by the Community's fishing fleets in all its areas of operation. Its purpose is to provide a general overview of the magnitude of discarding, to indicate the biological and economic consequences of discarding as well as the possibilities for reducing quantities discarded by reducing fishing effort and developing more selective fishing gears; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Action Plan on discards (2). This Action Plan deals with the problem of discarding of fish by the Community's fishing fleets in all its areas of operation. Its purpose is to provide a general overview of the magnitude of discarding, to indicate the biological and economic consequences of discarding as well as the possibilities for reducing quantities discarded by reducing fishing effort and developing more selective fishing gears;

| — | the promotion of selective fishing techniques, through financial incentives for the use of selective fishing gear offered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (3) and the funding of studies on by-catch and possible mitigation measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

the promotion of selective fishing techniques, through financial incentives for the use of selective fishing gear offered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (3) and the funding of studies on by-catch and possible mitigation measures.

As an example of the latter, a specific three-year research project, starting in 2003, is being finalised under the sixth Framework Programme to develop low-impact, species-selective fishing gears, and to formulate alternative fishing tactics in order to reduce impact on non-target species. The potential Community contribution is between EUR 3 and EUR 4 million.

| 1. | the introduction of fishing effort control measures in order to reduce by-catches of severely depleted fish stocks in mixed fisheries (such as, for instance, cod in the North Sea and West of Scotland).
  In connection with long distance fleets in third-country waters, in some cases the Fisheries Agreements contain measures to reduce discards, for example the setting of by-catch quotas. |
| --- | --- |

1.

the introduction of fishing effort control measures in order to reduce by-catches of severely depleted fish stocks in mixed fisheries (such as, for instance, cod in the North Sea and West of Scotland).

In connection with long distance fleets in third-country waters, in some cases the Fisheries Agreements contain measures to reduce discards, for example the setting of by-catch quotas.

| 2. | As far as monitoring is concerned, in the Data Collection Regulation (4) there is an obligation to monitor discards for specific stocks; other stocks of secondary importance are to be covered by pilot surveys. There are also monitoring obligations for the bycatch of some protected species in the Habitats Directive (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.

As far as monitoring is concerned, in the Data Collection Regulation (4) there is an obligation to monitor discards for specific stocks; other stocks of secondary importance are to be covered by pilot surveys. There are also monitoring obligations for the bycatch of some protected species in the Habitats Directive (5).

| 3. | As for the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) suggestion to call for a United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’, the Commission thinks it is a very valuable idea and is ready to support it. However, given the large workload associated with the preparation of the Commission's own Action Plan on Discards referred to in point 1, on which a number of specific initiatives will be taken next year, the Commission is not in a position to allocate resources to take the lead in preparing other initiatives at the international level. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As for the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) suggestion to call for a United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’, the Commission thinks it is a very valuable idea and is ready to support it. However, given the large workload associated with the preparation of the Commission's own Action Plan on Discards referred to in point 1, on which a number of specific initiatives will be taken next year, the Commission is not in a position to allocate resources to take the lead in preparing other initiatives at the international level.

---

(1)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2)  COM(2002) 656 final.

(3)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 establishing a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy, OJ L 176, 15.7.2000.

(5)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 43/92 of 9 January 1992 establishing a deadline for the presentation by the Member States of regionalization plans, OJ L 5, 10.1.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/60

---

(2004/C 84 E/0067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3387/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Increases in the cost of motor insurance — data sources

With reference to my written question to the Commission (E-l522/03 (1)) tabled on 23 April 2003, and to the answer by Commissioner Bolkestein received on 15 July 2003, I would like to reassert the reliability of the data I provided on the increases in the cost of motor insurance cover in Italy.

In the answer on behalf of the Commission, Commissioner Bolkestein contests the data I presented, which among other things indicate the disproportionate increase in the cost of motor insurance cover over the last 12 months, and in doing so refers to different figures. In the same answer, the Commission cites the source of its reference data as the European Insurance Association (CEA). This is in fact the body which ‘represents the interests of private European insurers’ (as it officially describes itself), and is therefore a completely partisan organisation. I would also point out that the data I cited came directly from the Italian competition ombudsman's office, which is an impartial organisation.

| 1. | How does the Commission justify using data from partisan organisations to confute other data that are clearly uninfluenced by vested interests? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission justify using data from partisan organisations to confute other data that are clearly uninfluenced by vested interests?

| 2. | Would it not perhaps consider it better professional conduct to use its own data? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would it not perhaps consider it better professional conduct to use its own data?

| 3. | In the light of the above, will the Commission reread and give a fresh answer to my written question E-1522/03 on unjustified increases in the cost of third-party motor insurance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of the above, will the Commission reread and give a fresh answer to my written question E-1522/03 on unjustified increases in the cost of third-party motor insurance?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the concerns regarding the situation existing in Italy where motor insurance tariffs have increased very much in recent times.

The Honourable Member is right in pointing out that the data provided by the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della concorrenza e del mercato), which coincide with those elaborated by Eurostat, show a larger increase in the premiums for Italy than the data issued by the European Insurance Association (CEA). The data from Eurostat show an overall increase in motor insurance premiums by 135,3 % from January 1995 to October 2003 in Italy — compared to an Union average of 29,3 %. However, it must be noted that other Member States also experienced large increases during the same period, notably Ireland (increase by 59,3 %) and the United Kingdom (84,5 % since January 1996).

However, one needs to underline that such a cross-country data comparison is not easy or straightforward. In particular, as also explained in the survey conducted by the Italian Competition Authority, reliable comparative results across Member States are very difficult to obtain since the features of the data considered differ from one Member State to the other due to local characteristics (such as different types of cars, different coverage provided by the insurance policies, etc.). Furthermore, the surveys conducted by the Italian Competition Authority (as well as by other public or private institutions, such as the European Insurance Association, CEA, that represents the European insurance industry) are based on samples that may differ with regard to the age of the drivers or the sex of the insured persons (for example the statistics of the Italian Competition Authority take only account of males). In addition, other cost factors, such as differing costs to repair vehicles and varying compensation schemes across countries, may affect the comparability of the statistics.

Finally, in order to assess the increase in premiums in Italy, it must also be taken into account that motor insurance tariffs were fixed by the Italian Government before the liberalisation introduced by the European directives in 1994. According to information available to the Commission, even after the tariff liberalisation, claims costs plus expenses have exceeded premium income for many years in the accounts of insurance undertakings in Italy. This is also confirmed in the analysis conducted by the Italian Competition Authority, which points out that only in the year 2000 did the premiums arising from motor insurance exceed the cost of claims. In 2000 and 2001 the motor insurance income still appears to be negative for insurance undertakings due notably to high management expenses.

However, the Italian Competition Authority's analysis also highlights conditions of low competition in the Italian market due to the existence of agreements between insurers as well as between insurance undertakings and loss adjusters for the claim compensation. In this specific regard, the Commission would like to specify that, on its part, it does not dispose of indications concerning possible anticompetitive agreements or collusion between insurers in the Italian market that would be contrary to European competition law (Article 81 of the EC Treaty).

The Authority's analysis in addition shows that other factors external to the insurance undertaking contributed to thetariff increases and their high level, such as the high costs of the compensation granted for personal damages and the uncertainty of the criteria determining such compensation in Italy.

Only in 2002 did most insurance companies reach a situation where motor insurance premiums income exceeded cost of claims plus expenses. In 2003 tariffs have apparently started to decrease for some categories of drivers, as confirmed by the data from the Italian Authority for the Supervision of the insurance sector (ISVAP).

In the conclusions of the ISVAP report in 2002 it is stated, with regard to the survey of the Italian Competition Authority, that the Italian system is not entirely comparable with the one existing in countries like France or the United Kingdom. These Member States have had freedom of tariffs for many years and, unlike in Italy, there was no obligation for insurance undertakings to provide coverage to all policyholders.

In addition to the above considerations, the Honourable Member is invited to consider also the relatively high cost and frequency of accidents in Italy as pointed out by the Commission in its reply to the question E-1522/03.

According to the European insurance legislation the tariffs of motor insurance should be determined by market forces. The Commission believes that, in the future, a more competitive and efficient European insurance market will lead to more competitive tariffs for the benefit of consumers in the Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 128.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/62

---

(2004/C 84 E/0068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Operation of quarries in a protected area

The Strofylia-Kotychi cluster of habitats in the western Peloponnese (Achaia and Ileia prefectures) is protected by the Ramsar Convention and by Directive 79/409 (1) and has been included in the Natura 2000 network (serial number 128, code GR 2320001). At its north-eastern edge, in the Mavra Vouna (‘Black Mountains’) area (which supplies the habitat with fresh water and where, ‘inter alia’, at least 100 species of birds find shelter, of which 27 are protected by Community directives) aggregates quarries have been operating since 1964, and in recent years they have intensified their activities, causing serious damage to the Black Mountains and Kalogria lagoon. In addition, they give rise to unbearable living conditions in neighbouring Araxos (through which many hundreds of lorries pass each day, starting at 4 a.m., accompanied by clouds of dust — as the lorries are very often uncovered — deafening noise, and damage to the foundations of buildings). All the above facts constitute multiple violations of both Community law and many national provisions.

Is the Commission aware of the above-mentioned facts, complained of by the residents, environmental non-governmental organisations and local government bodies? Does the Commission intend to check to what extent the above-mentioned directives are being complied with, and whether the quarries in question have permits and approvals relating to environmental conditions and whether they are complying with them? What measures will be taken to ensure compliance with the law for the period up to 2005, when it is believed that the quarries will close definitively?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Strofylia and Kotychi biotopes have been classified by Greece as special protection areas (codes GR2320001 and GR2330009) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and proposed as sites of Community importance (codes GR2320001 and GR2330006) in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3).

Under Article 7 and Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Greek authorities must ensure that activities in the area do not lead to deterioration of habitats on the sites or significantly disturb the species found there. Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC require Member States to give these special protection areas an appropriate legal status.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that on the basis of the facts reported in question E-3204/01 by Mr Papayannakis (4) it opened an own-initiative case, in order to check whether there was a system of protection for the sites. Its investigations showed that Greece had not taken the necessary measures to establish and implement a coherent, specific and comprehensive legal framework ensuring the sustainable management, conservation and effective protection of the sites, having regard to the conservation objectives of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. Considering that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC and Article 7 and Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in October 2003.

In the light of the above, it is clear that the Greek authorities must set up an appropriate system for protecting and managing the sites. This must establish the conditions under which existing activities and new activities may be carried out on protected sites, having regard to the conservation objectives of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. Under Greek law, such a system must include approval of a specific environmental study (management plan), adoption of a joint ministerial decision specifying environmental protection measures tailored to the site and its implementation by a management body specifically set up for the purpose.

Once it has seen the comments of the Greek authorities, the Commission will check for any incompatibility with the abovementioned Community provisions and will take all necessary measures to ensure that Community environmental legislation is complied with.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/63

---

(2004/C 84 E/0069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3491/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Single payment within the reform of the COM in olive oil

The Commission Communication on ‘accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reform of the CAP — the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors’ (1) final states that ‘adhesion to the single farm payment’ — instead of the existing production-linked payments — ‘enables low input olive oil producing regions to maintain their overall level of income support’. But the Communication also states that this single payment ‘could bring problems to certain traditional producer regions’ and that ‘there exists a significant risk of widespread disruption to olive tree maintenance’, particularly ‘where such areas manifest a high dependency on the olive sector in their local economies’. In its previous attempts at reform, the Commission tried to abolish the current production aids against the wishes of the producer countries, who resisted the attempts, pointing out the significant risk of ‘production abandonment’. The current proposal, forming part of the recent CAP reform, goes further still, by uncoupling production subsidies.

The Commission:

| 1. | How does it assess the impact of this proposal in the case of Portugal, specifically in terms of olive grove production in traditional producer regions? Does the Commission not believe that ending production-linked payments will seriously reduce and concentrate olive oil production, with both social and environmental repercussions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does it assess the impact of this proposal in the case of Portugal, specifically in terms of olive grove production in traditional producer regions? Does the Commission not believe that ending production-linked payments will seriously reduce and concentrate olive oil production, with both social and environmental repercussions?

| 2. | How does it, given the partial uncoupling of aid based on hectares or per tree, intend to guarantee that farmers will receive the same amount as before? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does it, given the partial uncoupling of aid based on hectares or per tree, intend to guarantee that farmers will receive the same amount as before?

| 3. | What overall result does it envisage from ending the differentiated payments to small producers under the previous reform? How does it view the introduction of a compensatory payment for small producers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What overall result does it envisage from ending the differentiated payments to small producers under the previous reform? How does it view the introduction of a compensatory payment for small producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Oil sales are already producers' main source of income. On average Community support accounts for only one third of it. Thus the market rather than production aid is the essential factor inducing growers to maintain their trees and pick the olives. The reform proposal does not alter this balance and the Commission does not expect significant production reductions. Further, with the new aid for maintaining olive groves Member States will be able to concentrate support where for social or environmental reasons it is most needed.

In addition the general provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2) make direct payments conditional on keeping the land in good agricultural and environmental condition. Thus Member States will be able to refuse to pay direct aid unless olive groves are maintained in good condition but they will not be able to require that the olives be harvested.

Under the CAP reform principles the overall support for the olive sector in each Member State remains that of the reference period. At individual level the proposal guarantees that producers will receive in the form of the single payment at least 60 % of the aid received during that period. The fact that this amount is decoupled will help stabilise growers' incomes since alternation, an important phenomenon in low production zones, will have no impact on the aid. On the other hand the aid for maintaining olive groves will not be granted on a historical basis but in line with their varying social and environmental importance.

Discontinuing the system of a fixed payment to small producers in 1998 served the Commission's intended purpose of stopping fraudulent double payments.

Under the Commission's proposal producers with less than 0,3 hectares will have 100 % of the aid received during the reference period converted to single payment entitlement. This will simplify their management and guarantee their present income level. They wili also have access to the olive grove maintenance aid on the same terms as other growers.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 554 final.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/65

---

(2004/C 84 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Information on the level of EU funding granted to Rhineland-Palatinate between January 1997 and December 2002

| 1. | For what measures was EU funding paid to Rhineland-Palatinate between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from the following programmes and funds:






  (a) | the European Social Fund; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

For what measures was EU funding paid to Rhineland-Palatinate between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from the following programmes and funds:

(a)

the European Social Fund;

| (b) | the Fifth Framework Programme for Research; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the Fifth Framework Programme for Research;

| (c) | the European Regional Development Fund; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the European Regional Development Fund;

| (d) | EU environmental and energy programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

EU environmental and energy programmes;

| (e) | the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section);

| (f) | other EU programmes? |
| --- | --- |

(f)

other EU programmes?

| 2. | How much was paid from the programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Rhineland-Palatinate and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lorraine and Alsace? What are the projects involved in each case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How much was paid from the programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Rhineland-Palatinate and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lorraine and Alsace? What are the projects involved in each case?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/65

---

(2004/C 84 E/0071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3524/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Eco-point scheme in Austria

As regards the issue of HGV transit in Austria and the Eco-point scheme, and now that the most recent attempt to reconcile Austria's claims with those of other EU countries has resulted in utter failure, further consideration of the matter has been held over until 25 November, on which date a fresh attempt to reach an agreement will be made.

It seems that the fault now lies with France and Germany, which appear to have done a volte-face and are now in favour of extending the Eco-point scheme beyond the 31 December 2003 cut-off point. Within the Conciliation Committee the Italian Government (in the person of an under-secretary, Paolo Uggè) has pointed out that both the Commission and the European Parliament are in favour of abandoning the Eco-point scheme.

Italy wished to reach an agreement with Austria whereby, for a further year, 20 % of the Eco-points would be retained for vehicles in categories EUR 1 and EUR 2, whilst category EUR 3 would be left open. France and Germany rejected the agreement, since their HGV fleets are older, higher-mileage ones which include a significant proportion of highly polluting vehicles.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the further difficulties which have recently been experienced in reaching an agreement, and what view does it take of the Austrian authorities' attitude? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the further difficulties which have recently been experienced in reaching an agreement, and what view does it take of the Austrian authorities' attitude?

| 2. | What does the Commission intend to do in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement on the Eco-point scheme? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What does the Commission intend to do in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement on the Eco-point scheme?

| 3. | Has the Commission assessed the economic losses being suffered by EU haulage companies on account of the fact that the search for a solution to this EU problem has been postponed once again? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission assessed the economic losses being suffered by EU haulage companies on account of the fact that the search for a solution to this EU problem has been postponed once again?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

In December 2001 the Commission presented a proposal to extend the ecopoints system for the transit of heavy goods vehicles through Austria. Since then, it has made sustained efforts to help the parties concerned come to an agreement. Such an agreement was reached during the meeting of the Conciliation Committee on 25 November 2003. The Honourable Member will be aware that fourteen Member States and the delegation from Parliament came out in favour of the option put forward by the Commission. The Regulation was finally adopted on 22 December 2003 (1).

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 2327/2003, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/66

---

(2004/C 84 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3539/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Windfarms in EU special areas of conservation

The construction of electricity-generating windfarms can cause some significant and permanent damage to fragile habitats such as upland peat moorland. They require the building of service roads, and as much as 300 tonnes of concrete may have to be laid in deep pits in order to support the new generation of wind turbines.

There is also concern that in some locations wind turbines can kill very significant numbers of rare birds.

The range of measures available to most Member States to reduce energy consumption and increase the supply of electricity from renewable sources, together with the fact that the individual contribution of each windfarm to national electricity consumption is usually very small indeed, surely means that it is difficult for any Member State to justify the siting of windfarms in special areas of conservation on the grounds that they are of overriding national importance.

In what circumstances does the Commission believe that there would be grounds to challenge the construction of one or more windfarms within EU special areas of conservation on the grounds that they breach the intentions of the Habitats Directive?

What, if any, guidelines has the Commission issued on this matter?

In view of the fact that most SACs have yet to be declared by the Commission, and yet construction of windfarms is proceeding rapidly in many Member States, what steps can be taken to prevent irreversible damage being done prior to formal SAC declaration?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

It is not possible for the Commission to specify all conceivable circumstances in which the construction of one or more windfarms within a special area of conservation would contravene the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

Under the terms of Article 6 of this Directive, any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the conservation values for which the site is included in Natura 2000 must be subject to an appropriate assessment. Where such assessments show that significant damage to a site will occur, Member States may only authorise developments in cases where no viable alternatives are available and where an overriding public interest in the development is demonstrated. In these cases they are, however, obliged to implement compensation measures by creation or improvement of habitat elsewhere to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 network.

The Commission has not produced sector specific guidelines on applying the provisions of Article 6. Instead, it has produced both a legal and technical guidance document as well as a separate methodological guide on the application of provisions of this Article. These documents are available on the web site of the Commission (2). The contents of the documents are valid for wind energy plans and projects.

While a list of sites of Community importance has yet to be fully adopted for all parts of the Union, Member States appear generally willing to apply the safeguards of Article 6 of the Directive to sites they nominate for proposed Special Areas of Conservation status. Where the Commission has evidence that these safeguards are not being applied, it has been and is prepared to make use of its powers under the EC Treaty to raise the matter, with a view to ensuring that the nature conservation objectives of the Directive are not put in jeopardy.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura_articles.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/67

---

(2004/C 84 E/0073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3563/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention

On Friday, 14 November 2003, the Italian Senate approved the Alpine Convention and, following a proposal by the Italian Government, removed the Convention's Transport Protocol from the list of protocols approved.

The report by the High Level Group on Trans-European Transport Networks on the Brenner base tunnel and the Turin-Lyon base tunnel states that ‘the economics of the tunnel and its access lines depend on an integrated transport policy favourable to intermodality in the spirit of the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention. It will be necessary to limit the development of new road capacities on the competing routes, and to adapt the infrastructure charging policy, so that road tolls from the competing routes can contribute to the financing of the tunnel in the framework of public-private partnership’.

The Senate's decision, which allows the building of large trans-Alpine motorways, means in practice that investments and railway tunnel links will be underused and, therefore, uneconomical.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Does the Italian Senate's decision (and, therefore, the Italian Government's desire) to commit itself to long-distance trans-Alpine motorways, in stark contrast to the findings of the Van Miert Report, not put at risk investment in rail links made by the Italian Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Italian Senate's decision (and, therefore, the Italian Government's desire) to commit itself to long-distance trans-Alpine motorways, in stark contrast to the findings of the Van Miert Report, not put at risk investment in rail links made by the Italian Government?

| 2. | Does the Commission, on the basis of the decision of the Italian Senate, intend to review its own decisions regarding European funding for Italian rail links? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission, on the basis of the decision of the Italian Senate, intend to review its own decisions regarding European funding for Italian rail links?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Commission's proposal on Trans-European network guidelines, which follows broadly the recommendations of a High Level Group on the trans-European transport network, aims at ensuring the completion of the Single market, the success of enlargement and modal transfer towards modes with less congestion and environmental problems. Cross-border sections and crossing of natural barriers were identified as two key areas. Therefore, the proposal puts an important focus on railway investments crossing the Alps.

A new proposal to amend the so-called Eurovignette directive proposes a harmonised method for charging full infrastructure costs to heavy goods vehicles. According to this proposal, a mark-up can be levied in environmentally sensitive zones such as the Alps to cross-finance investments in alternative modes.

In the case of the Alps, where transport capacity is scarce, improved railway services, based on the respective infrastructure improvements, will reduce demand on road according to recent studies. On the other hand, charging for road use will also induce higher demand for railways.

The Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 identifies the European priority projects, including the Brenner base tunnel and the Turin-Lyon base tunnel. This Commission proposal is currently discussed in the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission cannot intervene in a decision taken at a national level like the decision to ratify the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention. However, when assessing Member States' proposals for project funding, an assessment will be made as to the financial feasibility as well as to the strategic environmental impacts. Consideration will therefore be given to parallel projects developed on a national basis and influencing the profitability of the rail tunnels.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/68

---

(2004/C 84 E/0074)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3594/03

by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Novel Foods Regulation EC No 258/97, marketing of noni products in the EU

Pursuant to Article l(2)(e) of Regulation EC No 258/97 (1), foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from plants and obtained by traditional propagating or breeding practices and having a history of safe food use do not fall within the scope of that Regulation. Pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Regulation, a simplified notification procedure as set out in Article 5 of the Regulation applies to foods or food ingredients that are judged to be substantially equivalent to foods or food ingredients already authorised. The EU has authorised the placing on the market by the company Morinda of noni juice as a novel food. For other products produced from noni fruit, however, the basic possibility of their being regarded as substantially equivalent to the authorised juice has to date always been refused.

The costly authorisation procedure under the Regulation prevents small and medium-sized companies from introducing new natural products into the EU. In effect, this creates a monopoly for large groups, as only big companies have sufficient resources to carry out such procedures.

| 1. | According to what criteria is ‘having a history of safe food use’ defined in this connection, and which institution decides whether a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to what criteria is ‘having a history of safe food use’ defined in this connection, and which institution decides whether a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use?

| 2. | What legal remedies are available to a distributor seeking to establish that a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What legal remedies are available to a distributor seeking to establish that a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use?

| 3. | What requirements are laid down by the Commission in respect of evidence that a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What requirements are laid down by the Commission in respect of evidence that a food or food ingredient has a history of safe food use?

| 4. | What legal remedies are available to a distributor where the competent national body referred to in Article 4(3) of the Regulation refuses to deliver on opinion declaring that a food or food ingredient is substantially equivalent to a food already authorised? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What legal remedies are available to a distributor where the competent national body referred to in Article 4(3) of the Regulation refuses to deliver on opinion declaring that a food or food ingredient is substantially equivalent to a food already authorised?

| 5. | What is the basis for the EU working party's conclusion that only another juice may be regarded as substantially equivalent to authorised noni juice? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What is the basis for the EU working party's conclusion that only another juice may be regarded as substantially equivalent to authorised noni juice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

All Member States and the Commission agree that noni products (Morinda citrifolia) are novel food within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (2), as they have been placed on the market only after the entry into force of the Regulation. Therefore, the marketing of noni products prior to a possible authorisation under the Regulation is considered as illegal in all Member States. In order to ensure that noni products are treated in the same manner throughout the Community, Member States have agreed to take the appropriate steps to end any ongoing marketing of noni products in their territory (see also the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0325/2002 by Mrs Müller (3)).

The scope of the authorisation granted by the Commission Decision 2003/426/EC (4) is limited to the juice of the fruits of Morinda citrifolia as an ingredient to pasteurised fruit juices and it does not cover other uses of the said product. Therefore, other parts of the plant and/or other uses of the juice are not authorised.

In order to protect public health, Regulation (EC) No 258/97 establishes a Community procedure for a single pre-market safety assessment of novel foods and novel food ingredients. The Member States are in charge of enforcement and control. Consequently, it would be the national authorities, probably with the help of the competent food assessment bodies, who would have to determine whether a history of safe human consumption of a particular food is adequately demonstrated. The Regulation does not set out any criteria for defining ‘history of safe consumption’. However, in order to ensure a harmonised approach in the safety assessment of novel foods and novel food ingredients, Member States refer to the criteria and requirements laid down in the Commission Recommendation 618/97/EC (5).

The determination whether the product has or not a history of safe consumption is not applicable in the case of Morinda citrifolia, because Commission Decision 2003/426/EC implies that it is a novel food. For other foods and food ingredients, if appropriate and necessary, a Decision whether a food or food ingredient falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) 258/97 may be taken pursuant to Article 1.3 of the Regulation according to the procedure provided for in Article 13.

Member States and the Commission agree that a request for an opinion about ‘substantial equivalence’ should not be denied. In the unlikely event of such a refusal from a national authority, the recourse to legal remedies would be a question of national administrative law.

However, it should be noted that the simplified procedure is applicable only to products that are substantially equivalent to existing foods and food ingredients, which include foods that were authorised pursuant to the Novel Food Regulation. Obviously, the specified conditions of use have to be taken into account.

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that a revision of Regulation (EC) 258/97 will be undertaken in the course of 2004 in order to remedy any problems raised in the context of the application of the Regulation and ensure legal certainty and clarity for operators and public authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

(4)  Commission Decision 2003/426/EC of 5 June 2003 authorising the placing on the market of'noni juice' (juice of the fruit of Morinda citrifolia 1.) as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 144, 12.6.2003.

(5)  Commission Recommendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation EC No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 253, 16.9.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/70

---

(2004/C 84 E/0075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Tendering processes for development and humanitarian assistance

Would the Commission comment on how many Member States have less rigorous controls on tendering than those operated by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

All public contracts undertaken by a Member State for pecuniary interest are subject to the EU Public Procurement Directives (1) provided their value exceeds the threshold set in the relevant directive. This includes contracts financed through bilateral development aid granted by the Member States to which the contracting authorities belong and under whose financial responsibility the tender is organized.

Following a complaint, the European Commission carried out an extensive enquiry into the procurement practices of all 15 Member States concerning purchases financed by development aid, which led to the opening of a number of infringement procedures. Indeed, it appeared that some Member States used to make the grant of aid to developing countries conditional on the purchase of goods, services or works originating from the donor country (‘tied aid’). Pursuant to the Commission's enquiry only four Member States are still in the course of taking steps to remedy infringements to public procurement law.

As regards development aid granted by the Commission itself, specific provisions apply in accordance with the Financial Regulation (2), the Implementing Rules for the Financial Regulation (3), the General Regulation for service, supply and works contracts financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) (4) and the Financial Regulation applicable to the 9th EDF (5). Detailed provisions on controls on public procurement are applied in this framework.

As regards humanitarian aid granted by the Member States, the Commission is not at this stage aware of problems linked to the way Member States organize tender procedures. As far as Community humanitarian aid is concerned, the Commission has adopted, as stipulated by Article 238(3) of the Financial Regulation's Implementing Rules, specific procurement procedures, which are contained in Annex V of the Framework Partnership Agreement applicable to humanitarian operations. These procedures share the objectives of economy and efficiency with other external actions (best value for money, price-quality ratio, absence of conflict of interests). However, they introduce a certain degree of flexibility linked to the specific nature of humanitarian aid. These new rules have been favourably received by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) community as a major improvement as compared to the previous practices.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(4)  Decision No 2/2002 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 7 October 2002, OJ L 320, 23.11.2002.

(5)  Council Regulation of 27 March 2003, OJ L 83, 1.4.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/71

---

(2004/C 84 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Payable Internet services

One of the main Italian providers has made its Internet and e-mail services subject to payment since 11 November this year. From now on all those who want to continue using its services will have to pay an annual fee of around EUR 30.

This is a worrying sign of the direction in which Internet providers are moving. There is a tendency towards privatising the Net, which runs counter to the programme announced by the European Council in Lisbon. Furthermore, users only knew about the introduction of the new system when they were denied access to their own data and were asked to pay for the service, without a clear warning from the provider.

| 1. | What steps will the Commission take to ensure free access to the Internet for European citizens? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure free access to the Internet for European citizens?

| 2. | Does the Commission not consider that the behaviour of the Italian service provider referred to above is a blatant abuse and detrimental to the people who trusted it to handle their private correspondence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not consider that the behaviour of the Italian service provider referred to above is a blatant abuse and detrimental to the people who trusted it to handle their private correspondence?

| 3. | Does the Commission not consider that this action is contrary to the proposals announced by the European Council in Lisbon regarding the creation of a knowledge-based society? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not consider that this action is contrary to the proposals announced by the European Council in Lisbon regarding the creation of a knowledge-based society?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission believes that efficient and unencumbered access to new electronic communication services, including Internet services, can best be achieved in the first instance by there being an open and competitive market for such services. This is part of the basic motivation behind the common regulatory framework for electronic communications and services adopted last year and now being implemented within the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission believes that efficient and unencumbered access to new electronic communication services, including Internet services, can best be achieved in the first instance by there being an open and competitive market for such services. This is part of the basic motivation behind the common regulatory framework for electronic communications and services adopted last year and now being implemented within the Member States.

| 2. | Much of the Internet, and indeed its content and services, are the result of private investment. It is not unreasonable to expect that private companies will aim to make a return on that investment, as they would with any other investment. The Internet has permitted a range of commercial and non-commercial models to co-exist. Some of the models involve direct payment by consumers and some others are financed by advertising. It is not unusual for service providers to change their terms and conditions, and this can include charging for a particular service. If however this were done in an abusive way, for example without adequate warning, then the matter could be taken up with the local consumer protection authorities, for example. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Much of the Internet, and indeed its content and services, are the result of private investment. It is not unreasonable to expect that private companies will aim to make a return on that investment, as they would with any other investment. The Internet has permitted a range of commercial and non-commercial models to co-exist. Some of the models involve direct payment by consumers and some others are financed by advertising. It is not unusual for service providers to change their terms and conditions, and this can include charging for a particular service. If however this were done in an abusive way, for example without adequate warning, then the matter could be taken up with the local consumer protection authorities, for example.

| 3. | The Commission in its contribution to the Lisbon European Council noted that the high cost of Internet access was an important factor. The expectation was though that increased competition would reduce these costs. While there was the aim that the Internet be accessible by all this was not meant that all access should be without any payment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission in its contribution to the Lisbon European Council noted that the high cost of Internet access was an important factor. The expectation was though that increased competition would reduce these costs. While there was the aim that the Internet be accessible by all this was not meant that all access should be without any payment.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/72

---

(2004/C 84 E/0077)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Enlarging the Son Sant Joan de Palma de Mallorca airport (Balearic Islands)

In 2001 the present Spanish Government's Ministry of the Presidency approved the Master Plan for the Son Sant Joan de Palma de Mallorca airport (Balearic Islands). The Palma city council then adopted a specific amendment to the Palma General Plan so as to incorporate the provisions of the Airport Master Plan, which involved extending the facilities and runways so as to increase Balearic air traffic, which estimated forecasts indicate would rise to 38 million passengers by 2015.

Can the Commission confirm this extension of the airport?

Does the Commission believe that these forecasts run counter to the principle of sustainability and adequate assessment of impact on human beings, culture, countryside, natural environment, heritage and quality of life laid down in Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty of Nice for sustainable development, and in European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

What steps, if appropriate, does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a modification of the Palma General Plan incorporating the provisions of the Master Plan for the Son Sant Joan de Palma de Mallorca airport. The Commission is not aware of this programme or of the amendments approved.

At present, Union law does not require Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of their draft plans or programmes, or of proposed modifications. The position will change on 21 July 2004, the date by which Member States must complete their transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC, the so-called SEA Directive (1). Thereafter, Member States will have to carry out an environmental assessment of plans and programmes which meet the definition in the Directive. In some circumstances, plans or programmes begun before 21 July 2004 but not adopted until after 21 July 2006 might also require assessment.

On the other hand, Council Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 deals with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (2). It provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annexes I and II of the Directive. Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or II, fall under Annex II point 13 of the EIA Directive. This seems to be the case of the extension of facilities and runways. In this case, the Spanish authorities have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

From the information provided it is not clear if applications for development consent for the described projects have been made. In any case, the Spanish authorities will have to comply with the above-mentioned provisions of the EIA Directive.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no reason to assume that Union legislation is not being correctly applied. If the Honourable Member wants to provide additional information concerning the future development of this plan, the Commission will examine the issue further.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/73

---

(2004/C 84 E/0078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3628/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   High-speed rail link between Galicia and Portugal as part of the European growth initiative

The ‘quick start’ priority projects section of the European growth initiative includes high-speed rail links between Galicia and Portugal, namely the Vigo-Oporto part-project (for which no starting date is given, although it is due to be completed in 2010) and the La Coruña-Lisbon-Sines line (for which neither a starting date nor a date of completion is indicated).

What are the actual prospects for the above projects? What are the starting and completion dates for the Sines-Lisbon-Oporto and Oporto-Vigo part-projects and for the Sines-La Coruña project as a whole? What effect has the agreement on the projects which was reached at the Luso-Spanish government summit held on 8/9 November 2003 had on the prospects for completion of the projects?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission's report of 11 November 2003 to the Council on the Commission President's growth initiative includes a quick start programme. As regards transport, this programme contains the cross-border sections of the priority projects the Commission proposed on 1 October 2003 as part of the revision of the Decision on Community guidelines for the trans-European network.

The projects in the quick start programme meet the following four criteria:

| 1. | they are ready to start immediately — the aim being for substantial investment to be committed by the end of 2006, |
| --- | --- |

1.

they are ready to start immediately — the aim being for substantial investment to be committed by the end of 2006,

| 2. | they have a major cross-border impact, |
| --- | --- |

2.

they have a major cross-border impact,

| 3. | they will have beneficial results in terms of growth and jobs, and |
| --- | --- |

3.

they will have beneficial results in terms of growth and jobs, and

| 4. | they will help protect the environment. The quick start programme is a tool and will in no way affect the Commission's proposal of 1 October 2003 on the Community guidelines for TENs, which will be adopted through co-decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

they will help protect the environment. The quick start programme is a tool and will in no way affect the Commission's proposal of 1 October 2003 on the Community guidelines for TENs, which will be adopted through co-decision.

The Vigo-Oporto project forms part of priority project No 19 ‘High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula’ and is therefore included in the programme. The agreement reached at the recent summit between the Portuguese and Spanish governments on 8/9 November 2003 specifies that work on it will be completed in 2009, which is earlier than the forecast previously sent to the Commission (2010).

Regarding the Sines-Lisbon-Oporto line, the Commission would point out that only the Lisbon/Oporto-Madrid connection is included in the programme, as part of priority project No 3 ‘High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe’.

The agreement reached at the recent summit between the Portuguese and Spanish governments on 8/9 November 2003 served to establish the route of the Lisbon/Oporto-Madrid link, and this constituted an important step in the construction of the trans-European transport network. The agreement was also a precondition for including the link in the quick start programme. Under the Spanish-Portuguese agreement, the Lisbon-Madrid connection will be completed by 2010, and the Aveiro-Salamanca connection by 2015.

Furthermore, in addition to the projects included in the growth initiative, the Commission has already been able to ensure the Honourable Member on several occasions that all the projects concerning Galicia are covered by the Community guidelines it proposed on 1 October 2003, which are currently being examined by Parliament and the Council.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/74

---

(2004/C 84 E/0079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   High-speed rail link between Galicia, other parts of Spain and the French border

The section of the European growth initiative which is concerned with priority ‘quick start’ high-speed railway projects does not include the projects for rail links between Galicia, the rest of Spain and the French border, despite repeated assurances from the Spanish and Galician Governments that they will be completed in 2010.

Why are the above links absent from the list of priority ‘quick start’ high-speed railway projects? What forecasts concerning the links have been supplied by the Spanish Government to the European Union? What Community funding is to be made available by the Commission, and when?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission's report to the Council of 11 November 2003 on the growth initiative does indeed include a quick start programme. As regards transport, this programme contains the cross-border sections of the priority projects the Commission proposed on 1 October 2003 as part of the revision of the Decision on Community guidelines for the trans-European network (TEN).

The projects in the quick start programme meet the following four criteria:

| 1. | they are ready to start immediately — the aim being for substantial investment to be committed by the end of 2006, |
| --- | --- |

1.

they are ready to start immediately — the aim being for substantial investment to be committed by the end of 2006,

| 2. | they have a major cross-border impact, |
| --- | --- |

2.

they have a major cross-border impact,

| 3. | they will have beneficial results in terms of growth and jobs. and |
| --- | --- |

3.

they will have beneficial results in terms of growth and jobs. and

| 4. | they will help protect the environment. The quick start programme is a tool and will in no way affect the Commission's proposal of 1 October 2003 on the Community guidelines for TENs, which will be adopted through co-decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

they will help protect the environment. The quick start programme is a tool and will in no way affect the Commission's proposal of 1 October 2003 on the Community guidelines for TENs, which will be adopted through co-decision.

The programme includes the ‘North-Northwest Corridor, including Vigo-Oporto’, which is one section of priority project No 19 ‘High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula’ proposed on 1 October 2003. The ‘North-Northwest Corridor’ includes rail links between Galicia and the rest of Spain, linking up with the Madrid-Vitoria-Dax project. The data set out in the programme are those received from the Member States.

With regard to links between Spain and France, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Figueras-Perpignan section, which forms part of priority project No 3 ‘High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe’, is also included in the quick start programme.

Furthermore, in addition to the projects included in the growth initiative, the Commission has already been able to ensure the Honourable Member on several occasions that all the TEN projects concerning Galicia are covered by the Community guidelines it proposed on 1 October 2003, which are currently being examined by Parliament and the Council.

Community financing will be guided by current budgetary regulations and allocations. Accordingly, the Commission's proposals of 1 October 2003 included a proposal to amend the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) Financial Regulation by raising the maximum rate of contributions from the TEN budget from 10 % to 30 % of the cost of work on cross-border projects. The Council of Finance Ministers on 25 November 2003 reached political agreement on increasing it to 20 %, while at the same time broadening the scope of the maximum 20 % contribution to include projects crossing natural barriers. These provisions will be applicable as soon as they are finally adopted.

In addition, the European growth initiative is being supported by innovative financing methods. For instance, the Commission is preparing a new guarantee mechanism to cover the specific commercial risks of TEN projects in their post-construction phase.

The European Investment Bank (EIB), too, is playing an active role in the growth initiative through its TEN investment mechanism. Furthermore, it has now taken the necessary decisions for reinforcing its structured financing mechanism, through which it finances project risks which would otherwise not be covered by its conventional loan instruments. The EIB is also increasing the risk capital assistance it provides, and is proposing new and innovative instruments such as ‘securitisation structures’.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/75

---

(2004/C 84 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3643/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil

In 1998 the Council set national guaranteed quantities for olive oil, using figures which the Commission itself acknowledged as being questionable and on which the Court of Auditors also cast doubt in its special report 2/98. One of the objectives of the 1998 reform of the COM was to obtain reliable information on the true production situation. Exceeding the national guaranteed quantities entailed penalties which determined the amount of aid received during the period from 2000 to 2002. In its current proposal, the Commission suggests using this period as a basis for calculating future aid.

Does the Commission not consider that using information which it has acknowledged as unreliable will create distortion in future aid distribution? What efforts has the Commission made to verify the information used to determine the guaranteed national quantities in 1998? What was the outcome?

At the IOOC meeting in November 1996, slight changes were introduced consisting in the case of Greece of average reductions in production of 8 % and in surface areas of 63 %, in the case of Italy a reduction in surface areas of 54 % and an increase in production of 3 % and in the case of Spain, a slight reduction in production. This would suggest that olive oil production in Italy and Greece is higher than had been recorded. How does the Commission explain the adjustments made at the IOOC meeting in November 1996? Could there be other more likely explanations based on the unreliability of the figures used to determine the guaranteed national quantities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The NGQ distribution decided on by the Council in 1998 took a number of factors into account. Among them was production during the previous five-year period with extreme production years ruled out. Others included the circumstances of the sector in the various Member States.

The data yielded by the independent Olistat and Oliarea surveys has confirmed that the NGQ distribution corresponded to the production structure existing in 1998.

As was the case for the sectors dealt with in the first reform package, we are proposing that the national ceilings be calculated using the average of the payments received by growers during the reference period. For olive oil this is the 2000/2001 to 2002/2003 marketing years. This reference period is a key element of the reform. Its use guarantees consistency of financial treatment of the various CAP sectors.

At our request, the International Olive Oil Council re-examined its statistical series for the Member States in order to improve consistency between data sets, in particular for market prices.

This analysis of the statistical compilation methods in use showed that in some Member States olive oil utilisation covered human consumption alone whereas it should also have covered industrial uses and losses. It was also found that in some Member States marketing structures were such that many figures could not be known with better than 12 % accuracy.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/76

---

(2004/C 84 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3653/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Interpretative guide to the Birds Directive

In the answer given by Mrs Wallström on 22 May 2003 to Written Question P-1495/03 (1), the Commission undertook to send me the French version of the interpretative guide to the Birds Directive.

When will that guide be sent to me?

When will the guide be submitted to the Committee on the Environment, the European Parliament and the European Parliament's Intergroup on hunting, fishing and the environment?

When and how will the guide be applicable, having regard to the most recent judgment of the European Court of Justice on derogations relating to hunting?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission is fully aware of the commitment made in relation to providing the guidance document to the Parliament as soon as it has been finalised. It has been delayed in this task by the need to incorporate the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-l82/02 (preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), referred to it by the French Conseil d'Etat).

The section of the guide concerning the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 79/409/CEE is already available in three languages on the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/sustain-able_hunting.htm)

Now that the judgement in this case has been delivered, the Commission is proceeding with the finalisation of the guide. This will entail completion of the technical and legal revisions of the text and its translation, initially into French and German. The Commission intends to make the guide available early in 2004 to the Parliament's Environment Committee, the Intergroup on ‘Fieldsports, Fishing & Conservation’ and individual Members of Parliament who have requested the document.

The objective of the guide is to assist Member States and other relevant interests in the implementation of the hunting provisions of the Directive. The guide will reflect all the relevant judgements of the Court of Justice on this subject, including the latest judgement in relation to the provisions of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 73.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/77

---

(2004/C 84 E/0082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Counterfeiting of euro notes and coins

Information is now coming to light that forged euro notes are being detected with great frequency in Eurozone countries. In Greece, in fact, even counterfeit EUR 2 coins have been detected, while the same source alleges that there is a factory producing forged euro notes in Bulgaria and another producing counterfeit coins in Turkey. Eurobarometer's report No 58 sets out the results of a survey demonstrating that a large number of Eurozone citizens still feel psychologically attached to their former national currencies, while the euro is also seen as responsible for prices being rounded up. The European Central Bank has announced that it has formed, in partnership with the major banknote issuing authorities, the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group (CBCDG).

Does the Commission consider that the general preparation for the euro's introduction was adequate, and that measures to prevent forgery were taken early enough?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The fact that the euro was introduced with so little difficulty shows that the preparation was indeed adequate, not only by the Commission but by all the players. In the words of the Communication (1) from the Commission to the European Council ‘Review of the introduction of euro notes and coins’: ‘This major success is due to the quality and extremely thorough nature of the preparations made by the participating Member States, the European institutions (the European Central Bank and the European Commission), the national central banks, financial institutions, sales outlets, the police and cash-transport firms and to the active and enthusiastic participation of the public, without which this operation and the rapid distribution of euros would not have been possible’ (2).

The public perception of the euro's introduction is taken seriously by the Commission which will, in 2004, intensify its communication on the euro and economic and monetary union. Part of the effort will be designed to dispel the erroneous perception that the euro has lead to price rises and part will concentrate on good news such as the reduction of costs for cross-border payments.

A substantial number of measures, aimed at increasing the level of the protection of the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting, have been taken by the Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and Europol as well as the Member States.

These include:

| — | Setting-up the legal framework and mechanisms for enhanced collaboration between all authorities competent for the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks including those of acceding and third countries, Finance Ministries, etc.) at the level of Member States and European Institutions-bodies; |
| --- | --- |

—

Setting-up the legal framework and mechanisms for enhanced collaboration between all authorities competent for the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks including those of acceding and third countries, Finance Ministries, etc.) at the level of Member States and European Institutions-bodies;

| — | Reinforcement of the penal measures against counterfeiting; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reinforcement of the penal measures against counterfeiting;

| — | Intense training for all those concerned, general and specialised, at national, Union and international level, for which the main vehicle is the specific programme Pericles for exchange, assistance and training, managed by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Intense training for all those concerned, general and specialised, at national, Union and international level, for which the main vehicle is the specific programme Pericles for exchange, assistance and training, managed by the Commission;

| — | Continuous monitoring of the implementation of relevant legislation by the Member States; reporting and proposals, where appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Continuous monitoring of the implementation of relevant legislation by the Member States; reporting and proposals, where appropriate.

Overall, the measures taken at European and at national level to prevent and repress euro counterfeiting have raised the level of protection and have increased security for the citizen.

These measures were taken prior to the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins. In particular, the Europol mandate was extended to the counterfeiting of money in 1999; increased penal protection was decided in May 2000 (3) in terms of setting minimum sanctions and extending the scope of punishable acts; and Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (4), which lays down measures for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, was adopted in June 2001.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 124 final.

(2)  Europaper No 44 — April 2002.

(3)  Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000, OJ L 140, 14.6.2000.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001. Extended to those Member States that have not adopted the euro as their single currency in Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 2001, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/78

---

(2004/C 84 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna

Various universities, ecological organisations and citizens' groups, along with the two authors of this question, have been alerting the Commission to the major consequences which the work on enlarging the Campomanes Port in Altea will have, particularly on the posidonia beds and the dolphin population. The Commission itself, which has directly approached the Spanish authorities in order to assess the case, knows that the autonomous government intends to transplant the 40 hectares of posidonia threatened by the building work. However, this option has been discounted as ‘not viable’ by most experts, given the difficulties involved in replanting posidonia, and the fact that the dolphin community currently inhabiting the area of the posidonia beds, is highly dependent on them.

The Commission's answer to Written Question P-1450/03 (1) of 23 May 2003 stated that it was continuing to study the case, and would shortly take a decision.

Could the Commission please specify what conclusions were reached in its investigation into the environmental impact of the work on extending the port of Altea?

What decisions has it taken on this issue to date?

Do the Commission's experts agree with the opinions emanating from the area's universities on the ‘non-viability’ of the autonomous government's solution, namely transplanting the posidonia beds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Having studied the information available, the Commission concluded that the Spanish authorities had correctly applied the provisions of Community environmental law with regard to the plan to enlarge the Campomanes port in Altea. The Commission noted that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. The results of the assessment do not show that there will be a significant effect on the Site of Community Importance (SIC) proposed by the Spanish authorities for the Natura 2000 network, situated nearby. Moreover, the project will affect only 1 % (between 10 and 15 hectares) of the priority habitat of Community interest (posidonia beds) found on the site.

Insofar as the project concerned will not have any significant impact on the site, Community legislation does not require the adoption of compensatory measures. Therefore, although it is aware of the technical difficulties involved in transplanting posidonia beds, the Commission is unable to comment on the viability of such a step, or to prejudge the validity of other measures envisaged by the Spanish authorities to reduce the project's environmental impact.

As already stated, the Spanish authorities found that the project would not have a significant impact on the site following an impact assessment study which took particular account of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). Under these conditions, and in accordance with the said Article 6(3), the Spanish authorities can decide to authorise the project without adopting compensatory measures. Any other measures subsequently adopted by the Spanish authorities to protect the site would go beyond the application of Community law.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 716.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/79

---

(2004/C 84 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Camarles monkey farm

The Centre de Recherches Primatologiques Ltd. has recently imported a total of 298 macaques for an experimental farm in Camarles (Tarragona). The Commission has already been made aware of the problem by Question E-2259/02 (1). These monkeys have been confiscated by the Catalan Generalitat's Departament de Medi Ambient, until such time as it can be guaranteed that they represent no threat of possible contagion and risk of illness for the population, and likewise whether the activities carried out at the Camarles farm are compatible with Catalan autonomous legislation.

However, despite the fact that the Spanish authorities have momentarily held back the permits for the farm's activities, while waiting for a final decision on the part of the Catalan autonomous government:

| — | does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that, should the farm's activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that, should the farm's activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive;

| — | is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully complied with; |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully complied with;

| — | is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’? |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’?

Does the Commission know that with regard to the ‘crab-catching macaque’, the other imported species, the countries of origin (basically Malaysia and the Philippines) actually prohibited the export of these animals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

With regard to Article 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission has received no indication that the provisions of this Article are not being met.

The application of Articles 5, 14 and 15, on the housing and care of the animals, education and training of personnel, and conditions for approving breeding and supplying establishments, is the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that these provisions are not complied with and thus has no basis for a Commission investigation.

The Commission is aware that the species in question, Macaca fascicularis, is listed on Appendix II of CITES and the corresponding Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (3). Import of such species into the Community is only allowed when the country of origin has issued a valid export permit (thus respecting the decision of some countries to ban exports) and when the Member State concerned, in consultation with other Member States where appropriate, deems that the import does not pose a threat to the conservation status of the species. In the present case, the information available to the Commission indicates that the monkeys are not taken from any native wild populations. Therefore, subject to the provision of export permits, the import is not in breach of CITES or Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

---

(1)  OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 214.

(2)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/80

---

(2004/C 84 E/0085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber

The German-based multinational Gerry Weber formerly owned a textile manufacturing plant in Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal), which employed some 150 workers until it closed early in 2003. This closure occurred despite the plant reportedly being in receipt of Community funds in support of its operations.

The plant was subsequently bought up by another company, and operations recommenced in September.

The Commission:

| 1. | Can itstate whether Gerry Weber received Community funds for its textile manufacturing plant in Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can itstate whether Gerry Weber received Community funds for its textile manufacturing plant in Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal)?

| 2. | Should that be the case, what measures has Commission taken, or what measures will it take, following the decision by Gerry Weber Portugal Confecções, Lda to close the plant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should that be the case, what measures has Commission taken, or what measures will it take, following the decision by Gerry Weber Portugal Confecções, Lda to close the plant?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the firm Gerry Weber received funding from the Community support framework (CSF II) (1994-1999), for the vocational training and employment programme (1), notably EUR 226 525,26 from the European Social Fund (ESF).
  The Commission would also like to point out that funding from the ESF is not subject to conditions linked to undertakings' continued existence but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations in force at that time for the allocation of ESF assistance.
  The firm also received EUR 809 823,86 in cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for two projects approved under the 1988 PNICIAP (2) programme (CSF I) and the 1994 programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (CSF II).
  The guidelines which require the assets financed to be maintained in the establishment for at least five years from the date of the investment for which aid was granted were not adopted by the Commission until after 10 March 1998. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the firm Gerry Weber received funding from the Community support framework (CSF II) (1994-1999), for the vocational training and employment programme (1), notably EUR 226 525,26 from the European Social Fund (ESF).

The Commission would also like to point out that funding from the ESF is not subject to conditions linked to undertakings' continued existence but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations in force at that time for the allocation of ESF assistance.

The firm also received EUR 809 823,86 in cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for two projects approved under the 1988 PNICIAP (2) programme (CSF I) and the 1994 programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (CSF II).

The guidelines which require the assets financed to be maintained in the establishment for at least five years from the date of the investment for which aid was granted were not adopted by the Commission until after 10 March 1998.

| 2. | The Commission would like to point out that several Community Directives lay down procedures for informing and consulting workers' representatives that may be applicable when enterprises are closed down, especially Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (3), Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (4) and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (5). The first two have been transposed in the Member States. It is up to the competent national authorities, including the judges, to assess whether they are properly implemented in each case. The last Directive mentioned is to be transposed in the Member States by no later than 23 March 2005. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission would like to point out that several Community Directives lay down procedures for informing and consulting workers' representatives that may be applicable when enterprises are closed down, especially Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (3), Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (4) and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (5). The first two have been transposed in the Member States. It is up to the competent national authorities, including the judges, to assess whether they are properly implemented in each case. The last Directive mentioned is to be transposed in the Member States by no later than 23 March 2005.

---

(1)  Decision No C (1994) 379, 25 February 1994.

(2)  Programa Nacional de Interesse Comunitário de Incentivo a Actividade Produtiva (National programme of Community interest in support of productive activity).

(3)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(4)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(5)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/81

---

(2004/C 84 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3677/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1114/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/82

---

(2004/C 84 E/0087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-1116/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/82

---

(2004/C 84 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3679/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pesaro

In its answer to question E-1111/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/82

---

(2004/C 84 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1106/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/83

---

(2004/C 84 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-1112/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/83

---

(2004/C 84 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-1104/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/83

---

(2004/C 84 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Carrara

In its answer to question E-1105/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Carrara had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/84

---

(2004/C 84 E/0093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-1107/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/84

---

(2004/C 84 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-1108/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/84

---

(2004/C 84 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-1109/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/85

---

(2004/C 84 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pistoia

In its answer to question E-1113/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/85

---

(2004/C 84 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Perugia

In its answer to question E-1110/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied twice, in 1997 and 1999, but that it had not received funding in either case.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/85

---

(2004/C 84 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1115/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied with two projects in 1999, but that neither of them had received funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3677/03, E-3678/03, E-3679/03, E-3680/03, E-3681/03, E-3682/03, E-3683/03, E-3684/03, E-3685/03, E-3686/03, E-3687/03, E-3688/03 and E-3689/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Two calls for proposals under the Ecos-Ouverture Programme were made, in 1997 and 1998, but none subsequently. Consequently of the local authorities named eight — Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Pesaro, Pisa and Pistoia — could not be granted funding under the programme after 1999.

The Commission received more than 300 applications in response to these two calls. The selection procedure used the criteria published in them. On that basis the 63 best projects (31 in 1997 and 32 in 1998) were selected.

The reasons for rejection of the projects submitted by local and regional authorities named in the Honourable Member's questions are:

| — | Municipality of Florence: Innocenters project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented; |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Florence: Innocenters project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

| — | Municipality of Prato: Ecotex project not selected owing to weaknesses in the work programme and budget presented; |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Prato: Ecotex project not selected owing to weaknesses in the work programme and budget presented;

| — | Municipality of Siena: Femeco project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented; |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Siena: Femeco project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

| — | Province of Siena: the Thermal Management project did not meet minimum eligibility requirements in connection with the legal situation and financial commitment of the partners; |
| --- | --- |

—

Province of Siena: the Thermal Management project did not meet minimum eligibility requirements in connection with the legal situation and financial commitment of the partners;

| — | Provinces of Perugia and Terni (with Umbria Region): the Womanenterprise project could not be financed because the MEDA fund withdrew from the programme financing arrangement and it was consequently impossible to aid projects submitted by a partnership of local/regional authorities from the Union and from MEDA countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

Provinces of Perugia and Terni (with Umbria Region): the Womanenterprise project could not be financed because the MEDA fund withdrew from the programme financing arrangement and it was consequently impossible to aid projects submitted by a partnership of local/regional authorities from the Union and from MEDA countries;

| — | Umbria Region: the Record project did not meet the co-financing requirements for eligibility for assistance from the ERDF and Phare resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

Umbria Region: the Record project did not meet the co-financing requirements for eligibility for assistance from the ERDF and Phare resources;

| — | Bioregionalism regional agency located at Perugia: Bioregional Sudira project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented; |
| --- | --- |

—

Bioregionalism regional agency located at Perugia: Bioregional Sudira project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

The Ecos-Ouverture Programme is actually due to be closed in the first quarter of 2004. At present, and for the entire 2000-06 period, interregional cooperation is assisted under the Interreg Community Initiative.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/86

---

(2004/C 84 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Terni

With reference to question E-0973/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Terni (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/87

---

(2004/C 84 E/0100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3705/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Ancona

With reference to question E-0961/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Ancona (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/87

---

(2004/C 84 E/0101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Carrara

With reference to question E-0962/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Carrara (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/87

---

(2004/C 84 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Florence

With reference to question E-0963/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Florence (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/88

---

(2004/C 84 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3708/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Livorno

With reference to question E-0964/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Livorno (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/88

---

(2004/C 84 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3709/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Macerata

With reference to question E-0965/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Macerata (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/88

---

(2004/C 84 E/0105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Massa

With reference to question E-0966/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Massa (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/89

---

(2004/C 84 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Perugia

With reference to question E-0967/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Perugia (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/89

---

(2004/C 84 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pesaro

With reference to question E-0968/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pesaro (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/89

---

(2004/C 84 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3713/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pisa

With reference to question E-0969/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pisa (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/90

---

(2004/C 84 E/0109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Prato

With reference to question E-0971/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Prato (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/90

---

(2004/C 84 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3715/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Siena

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/90

---

(2004/C 84 E/0111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3716/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pistoia

With reference to question E-0970/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pistoia (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that a proposal had been submitted but had not been accepted.

Can the Commission provide information on the reasons for this rejection and state whether any other projects have been submitted since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/91

---

(2004/C 84 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3717/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Massa

With reference to question E-0966/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Massa (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/91

---

(2004/C 84 E/0113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3721/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Carrara

With reference to question E-0962/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Carrara (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/91

---

(2004/C 84 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3722/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Florence

With reference to question E-0963/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Florence (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/92

---

(2004/C 84 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3723/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Livorno

With reference to question E-0964/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Livorno (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/92

---

(2004/C 84 E/0116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3724/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Macerata

With reference to question E-0965/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Macerata (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/92

---

(2004/C 84 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3725/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Ancona

With reference to question E-0961/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Ancona (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/93

---

(2004/C 84 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3726/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pesaro

With reference to question E-0968/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pesaro (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/93

---

(2004/C 84 E/0119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3727/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pisa

With reference to question E-0969/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pisa (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/93

---

(2004/C 84 E/0120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3728/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Pistoia

With reference to question E-0970/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pistoia (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/94

---

(2004/C 84 E/0121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Prato

With reference to question E-0971/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Prato (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/94

---

(2004/C 84 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3730/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Siena

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/94

---

(2004/C 84 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3731/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Terni

With reference to question E-0973/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Terni (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3704/03, E-3705/03, E-3706/03, E-3707/03, E-3708/03, E-3709/03, E-3710/03, E-3711/03, E-3712/03, E-3713/03, E-3714/03, E-3715/03, E-3716/03, E-3717/03, E-3721/03, E-3722/03, E-3723/03, E-3724/03, E-3725/03, E-3726/03, E-3727/03, E-3728/03, E-3729/03, E-3730/03 and E-3731/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member in the context of the 25 written questions with regard to the Communes of Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni that Altener II and SAVE II both ended in 2002, so no more projects were invited and presented since April 2003.

With regard to written question E-3716/03, the city of Pistoia had submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal ‘Resred’ did not succeed and was not granted support, because the independent experts' evaluation concluded that the proposal did not demonstrate sufficient European added value and replication potential, focussing on pre-feasibility studies mainly in Italian and Greek municipalities; in addition, other problems regarding the proposed approach, project team, budget, etc. led to the negative result.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/95

---

(2004/C 84 E/0124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3719/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Evaluation of the risk inherent in zinc

The manufacturing sectors involved have been waiting for years for the report on evaluating the risks of zinc in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 (2), which lay down the principles. In its answer to the previous question on the same subject (of 29 October 2001) the Commission said that the technical meeting of the Commission had set a deadline of 18 months from September 2001 for acquiring further information and/or evidence to be incorporated in the final report on evaluating the risks. The 18 months have now passed and this further delay is causing economic damage to the industry concerned.

Can the Commission say:

| — | what obstacles are continuing to delay the completion of the dossier; |
| --- | --- |

—

what obstacles are continuing to delay the completion of the dossier;

| — | by what date the file may finally be closed? |
| --- | --- |

—

by what date the file may finally be closed?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The zinc industry has finalised its additional research in the context of the risk assessment for zinc according to the timescale that was agreed at the Technical Meeting of the European Chemical Bureau (ECB) on existing substances (Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993) in September 2001. The results of this research were presented in March 2003.

The ‘rapporteur’ for the zinc dossier, the Netherlands, as well as the Member States experts expressed their appreciation for this work but needed more time to study the full contents of all study reports. Subsequently, several discussions have taken place at the Technical Meetings related to the way the study results on the bio-availability of zinc should be incorporated and used in the final risk assessment report. This discussion was finalised at the last Technical Meeting in December 2003. The ‘rapporteur’ will now produce a full risk assessment report in early 2004 which is planned to be discussed at the next Technical Meeting in March 2004. The Commission expects that the Member States experts will be able to finalise the discussions on the zinc dossier at that meeting.

---

(1)  OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/96

---

(2004/C 84 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/03

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Protection of personal rights

The extent to which personal rights are protected varies greatly within the EU. In some Member States the burden of proof is on the legal or natural person who makes statements which constitute an invasion of privacy, whereas in other Member States this is not the case. In certain Member States, protection of the privacy of contemporary public figures is almost entirely neglected in favour of freedom of the press, and a case on this issue is currently pending at the European Court of Human Rights.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to put forward proposals on achieving a sufficient level of protection in all Member States, and does it believe it is in a position to do so? Does it consider that legislation should be proposed laying down appropriate fines for violations of personal rights, based on Article 7 of the proposal for a regulation on non-contractual obligations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's analysis of the divergences in the substantive civil law of the Member States regarding violations of personal rights and the protection of privacy.

For the moment the Commission has no plans to propose harmonisation of the Member States' substantive law of civil liability regarding personal rights where non-material damage predominates and the evaluation by the courts depends heavily on the local socio-economic context. Council discussions on the Commission proposal for a Rome II instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations have shown that all Community initiatives which impinge on press freedom are highly sensitive on account of the close link with the Member States' concepts of public order and constitutional principles.

While the Rome II proposal does not seek to approximate the substantive law, it does seek to improve the degree of equality as between victims of a violation of personal rights since it proposes that the same law be applicable irrespective of the Member State whose courts are seized. The purpose of the initiative is thus to improve the foreseeability of legal situations of victims engaging in cross-border litigation.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/97

---

(2004/C 84 E/0126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3779/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Terni under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1103/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/97

---

(2004/C 84 E/0127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Caraira under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1092/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Cararra had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/97

---

(2004/C 84 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Florence under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1094/03 (1) asking whether the city of Florence had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/98

---

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/98

---

(2004/C 84 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1095/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/98

---

(2004/C 84 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1096/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/99

---

(2004/C 84 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3785/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1097/03 (1) asking whether the city of Perugia had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/99

---

(2004/C 84 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1098/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/99

---

(2004/C 84 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1099/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/100

---

(2004/C 84 E/0135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3788/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Pistoia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1100/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/100

---

(2004/C 84 E/0136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Prato the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1101/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/100

---

(2004/C 84 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Siena under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-l102/03 (1) asking whether the city of Siena had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/101

---

(2004/C 84 E/0138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Ancona under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1091/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3779/03, E-3780/03, E-3781/03, E-3782/03, E-3783/03, E-3784/03, E-3785/03, E-3786/03, E-3787/03, E-3788/03, E-3789/03, E-3790/03 and E-3791/03

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission refers to its joint answer given to the Honourable Member's written questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03, E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03, E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03 on 22 April 2003 (1).

On 8 August 2003, a call for proposals in the field of Community cooperation as regards civil protection was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). Out of 25 proposals received, five have been selected, of which one was presented by the Municipality of Rome. None of the other Italian municipalities presented proposals to the Commission.

The next call for proposals in this context will be published at the end of February 2004. The Honourable Member is invited to consult the internet page http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm on which this last call under the Community action programme in the field of civil protection will be announced.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2)  OJ C 188, 8.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/101

---

(2004/C 84 E/0139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3817/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Road tolls charged on the ‘Attic Highway’ in Athens

On 30 November 2003 the Greek Prime Minister, Kostas Simitis, inaugurated (at a party political event) the penultimate stretch of the ‘Attic Highway’ (at least that was what was announced). This Highway has been brought into service in stretches over the last year and a half, and road tolls have been rising continuously for private vehicles, reaching EUR 2 on 1 December 2003. It has now been announced that they will be increased to EUR 2,8 or more after the Olympic Games.

The Greek press has very accurately described the ‘Attic Highway’ as ‘the most expensive road in Europe’, since no other road is so expensive to use. It should also be noted that the cost is not geared to the number of kilometres covered: thus a user who covers 40 kilometres along the ‘Attic Highway’ pays exactly the same amount as another user who covers only three kilometres.

How does the Commission view the size of the road tolls charged and the non-differentiation of costs for users? Is the above arrangement in line with the provisions of Community legislation? Who collects the road tolls charged on the ‘Attic Highway’? What was the original budget of the Highway and what is the final cost? What is the overall extent of the Community financial contribution (loans, resources from the third Community Support Framework, etc.) in realising the project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Directive 1999/62/EC (1) covers the levying of taxes, tolls and user charges on lorries of 12 tonnes and more. Member States levying tolls on vehicles below 12 tonnes, including private cars, do not have to comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC.

In addition, the Directive does not concern the introduction of specific urban traffic charges nor regulatory charges specifically designed to combat time and place-related traffic congestion. The Attica motorway is an urban motorway with the aim of linking settlements in the Attica Basin in order to contribute to traffic decongestion in the capital area. The imposition of a flat rate toll does not infringe the provisions of the Directive.

According to the information provided to the Commission by the Greek Authorities, the amount of the toll is related to the cost of construction and operation of the motorway by the contractor, which was chosen after a public tender procedure. It should also be noted that the concession period when the contractor will apply the tolls is limited to 23 years and the maximum toll for passenger cars has been determined at EUR 1,56 in June 1994 prices. After inflation, this equates today to a maximum toll of around EUR 3 (including VAT).

The European Investment Bank has approved a loan of EUR 645 million to the concessionnaire of Attiki Odos. This loan is used by the concessionnaire as the private sector contribution to the project defined by the concession contract.

The Trans-European Network (TEN) budget of the European Union has co-financed the studies of ‘Attiki Odos’to a total amount of EUR 34 million.

The Regional Operational Programmes 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 for Attika have contributed a total amount of EUR 53 million of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to Attiki Odos. The Operational Programme ‘Road Axes 1994-1999’ has co-financed Attiki Odos with EUR 135 million of the ERDF.

An application has been received by the Commission from the Greek Authorities requesting the confirmation of the co-financing of Attiki Odos by the ERDF under the Operational Programme ‘Road Axes, Ports, Urban Development 2000-2006’. The Commission is currently examining this application.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/102

---

(2004/C 84 E/0140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3822/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Serious negative impact on habitats and species of Community interest on the island of Mallorca

The current Mallorcan regional government (Conseil de Mallorca) has decided to amend the Sectorial Roads Masterplan. The amendment involves building a major road (Inca-Manacor), two motorways (Inca- Sa Pobla and Llucmajor), adding a third carriageway to the Palma-Inca motorway and extending a second ringroad in Palma. This amendment of the Masterplan is published in the Official Journal of the Balearic Islands, No 141, of 11 October 2003.

Some of these schemes will have a very serious impact on natural habitats of Community interest within the terms of Annex I and Annex II of Directive 97/62/EC, adapting Directive 92/43/EEC to scientific and technical progress, on the conservation of natural habitat and woodland fauna and flora (1), such as wild olive groves (Oleo ceratonion) (Natura 2000 code: 9320), holm oak groves (Quercion ilicis) (9340), and animal and vegetable species of Community interest such as the Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo hermanni) or certain insects (Cerambyx cerdo). It should be observed that some of these habitats are protected by regional legislation. The significant biodiversity in terms of plant and animal species within these natural habitats also needs to be highlighted, many of them listed in the National Catalogue of Threatened Species (Royal Decree 439/90 of 30 March). Some of the holm oak and wild olive groves which will be affected are the sole remaining examples in the central area of the island of Mallorca.

The amended Masterplan makes no provision for carrying out an adequate scheme for assessing the environmental impact, although it is no secret that the Plan will involve major territorial, environmental, social and economic impact, including the destruction of an extensive rural area.

Is the Commission aware of the way in which this Plan will affect habitats and species of Community interest?

Does the Commission not believe that some of these habitats should be listed as Sites of Community Interest?

What measures, if any, does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the adverse environmental effects of the amended road plan for the island of Mallorca proposed by the regional government, and the fact that no provision has been made for an environmental impact assessment.

First, the Commission would refer to its recent replies to question E-3346/03 by the Honourable Member (2) and question E-3865/03 by Isler Béguin (3), which also concern the amended road plan for Mallorca, in the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands, Spain.

In its replies, the Commission explained that Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (4) was not applicable because the deadline for its transposition was 21 July 2004. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (5) does apply, but for the specific road projects that will be developed.

In this written question the Honourable Member reports that the amended road plan will have adverse effects on natural habitats and species of Community interest found on the island of Mallorca. Council Directive 92/43/EEC (6) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna could be applicable in this case.

The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the application of the abovementioned Directives in this particular case, with a view to determining whether the plan is likely to have a significant effect on a Site of Community Importance (SIC), having regard to the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the provisions of Article 6 apply.

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is observed in this instance.

---

(1)  OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 804.

(3)  See page 107.

(4)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(5)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(6)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/104

---

(2004/C 84 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3828/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships

The Commission recently took steps designed to allow certain forms of aid for the European ship-building industry in order to withstand unfair competition from South Korean shipyards. The European Parliament has adopted a report on the ‘Prestige’ disaster, which included a resolution calling for the building of oil tankers in regions such as Galicia which have been seriously affected by disasters at sea.

In this context what reason can there be for banning the Izar de Fene shipyard in Galicia from building merchant ships? Has Spain requested that Izar de Fene (formerly Astano) should be allowed to build ships of this kind once again? What is the Commission's position, bearing in mind that the Ferrol district, in which Izar de Fene is located, lost thousands of jobs as a consequence of the ban imposed on the shipyard, which has had to confine itself to building off-shore platforms?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission, in 1997, approved (1) EUR 1 377 million of restructuring aid for the public Spanish shipyards. In this decision, it was stated that, in order to minimize the possible market distorting effects of the aid, the annual production for the Spanish yards should not exceed 210 000 cgt for a period of 10 years. Furthermore, the decision stated that the Astano [now called Fene] yard should not reopen for shipbuilding. (It was already closed to shipbuilding due to previously approved aid to Spanish shipbuilding).

The decision to keep Fene (ex-Astano) closed was in order to ensure the restriction on Spanish shipbuilding production and, therefore, a counterpart for the approved restructuring aid authorised in 1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997, on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring (2) on which the Commission decision mentioned above was based, that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

The Commission is not able to prejudge what its position would be on the issue of allowing Fene to restart with shipbuilding.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

(2)  OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/105

---

(2004/C 84 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3831/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Current European-American negotiations on the use of Galileo

With reference to press reports (see for example the Frankfurter Rundschau of 3 December 2003) according to which the US armed forces are to be permitted not only to switch off the Galileo satellite-based system in the event of crisis and conflicts, but also to weaken and reduce the quality of the Galileo signal, can the Commission say whether this information is accurate?

At the same time, I would remind the Commission of the European Parliament resolution on the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency (15 May 2003), which stressed the need for Europe to have independent access to space and highlighted Europe's common interest in this regard.

Europe's independence from America was one of the main arguments used to justify the immense costs involved in developing this satellite navigation system, at least half of which are to be borne by the taxpayer.

Can the Commission say whether (and how) it will act to ensure that European interests are not sacrificed either to those of the US military or to those of certain sectors of (US) industry at the next round of negotiations in Washington in January 2004?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The agreement being negotiated with the United States is intended to ensure that the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Galileo are compatible and interoperable, to the mutual benefit of all users, who will gain in terms of accuracy and reliability.

To that end, a structure for the signals emitted by the Galileo system needs to be established which will meet the essential national security requirements of both the United States and Europe.

Agreement has just been reached regarding Galileo's governmental signal (commonly known as the Public Regulated Service — PRS) without calling into question either its quality or Europe's authority regarding continuity of service.

Discussions are continuing regarding the other services for which the European side's objective is again to retain full control and optimum performance.

It should be added that Europe has refused to grant the United States a right of veto over any improvements to be made to the structure of Galileo's signals.

The Commission and the Member States are thus aiming to preserve Europe's independence while providing users with the benefits of GPS/Galileo interoperability.

Against this background, the costs of Galileo — equivalent to the cost of 150 kilometres of urban motorway — are in no way exorbitant given the economic, social and societal benefits Galileo will bring.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/106

---

(2004/C 84 E/0143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3842/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Attacks on democracy in Mauritania

Knowing that:

| — | On 7 November 2003, presidential elections were held in Mauritania. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 7 November 2003, presidential elections were held in Mauritania.

| — | Having refused to allow any international observation, the Mauritanian authorities unilaterally set the date with a total lack of transparency, in contravention of the country's own laws and in an atmosphere of repression. |
| --- | --- |

—

Having refused to allow any international observation, the Mauritanian authorities unilaterally set the date with a total lack of transparency, in contravention of the country's own laws and in an atmosphere of repression.

| — | According to the official results the outgoing president, Maaouyia Ould Taya (who has been in power for 19 years), has been re-elected in the first round for a six-year period, having received two-thirds of the votes cast. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to the official results the outgoing president, Maaouyia Ould Taya (who has been in power for 19 years), has been re-elected in the first round for a six-year period, having received two-thirds of the votes cast.

| — | The three main opposition candidates have called for the election result to be annulled and for a rerun of an electoral process which they have described as ‘null and void’ on account of ‘widespread rigging’ and ‘judicial violence’ against Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidallah (the outgoing president's predecessor and main rival) who, on the eve of the election, was arrested, together with the director of his company — the MP Ismael Ould Amar — whom the Mauritanian authorities have stripped of his parliamentary immunity, in contravention of the Constitution and the National Assembly's rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

The three main opposition candidates have called for the election result to be annulled and for a rerun of an electoral process which they have described as ‘null and void’ on account of ‘widespread rigging’ and ‘judicial violence’ against Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidallah (the outgoing president's predecessor and main rival) who, on the eve of the election, was arrested, together with the director of his company — the MP Ismael Ould Amar — whom the Mauritanian authorities have stripped of his parliamentary immunity, in contravention of the Constitution and the National Assembly's rules.

| — | In addition to Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla, the following were arrested during the same month: his family members Sidi Ahmed Ould Haidalla (known as Bazra), on the 3rd day of the month; Sidi Mohamed Ould Haidalla, on the 4th; Yakoub Ould Haidalla, on the 9th, and Abdoulaye Barro (known as Wazir), on the 8th; his colleagues Ely Ould Sneiba, Mohamed El-Hafedh Ould, Mohamed Vall (known as Haba), Mohamed Yedhih Ould Breideleil and Devaly Ould Cheïne, on the 6th; Ismael Ould Seigua, Mohamed El-Hacen Ould Lebatt and Sid'Ahmed Ould Ahmed Kerkoub, on the 9th; Sheikh El Mokhtar Ould Horma Ould Bebana, on the 16th; Saïd Ould Elarby Ould Zergane and Sheikh Diko, on the 17th; and the militants Mohamed Vadel Ould Radhi, Abdel Khader Ould Mohamed and (on the 13th) Mohamed Lemine Ould Bellamech. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition to Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla, the following were arrested during the same month: his family members Sidi Ahmed Ould Haidalla (known as Bazra), on the 3rd day of the month; Sidi Mohamed Ould Haidalla, on the 4th; Yakoub Ould Haidalla, on the 9th, and Abdoulaye Barro (known as Wazir), on the 8th; his colleagues Ely Ould Sneiba, Mohamed El-Hafedh Ould, Mohamed Vall (known as Haba), Mohamed Yedhih Ould Breideleil and Devaly Ould Cheïne, on the 6th; Ismael Ould Seigua, Mohamed El-Hacen Ould Lebatt and Sid'Ahmed Ould Ahmed Kerkoub, on the 9th; Sheikh El Mokhtar Ould Horma Ould Bebana, on the 16th; Saïd Ould Elarby Ould Zergane and Sheikh Diko, on the 17th; and the militants Mohamed Vadel Ould Radhi, Abdel Khader Ould Mohamed and (on the 13th) Mohamed Lemine Ould Bellamech.

| — | Mohamed Ould Baba was taken hostage instead of his brother, Sid' Ahmed Ould Baba. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mohamed Ould Baba was taken hostage instead of his brother, Sid' Ahmed Ould Baba.

| — | Those arrested are still in custody and are being secretly detained in Beila prison on the outskirts of Nouakchott, in isolation and with no rights as regards receiving visitors and meeting their own lawyers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Those arrested are still in custody and are being secretly detained in Beila prison on the outskirts of Nouakchott, in isolation and with no rights as regards receiving visitors and meeting their own lawyers.

| — | 1 December saw the opening, by means of an emergency procedure, of the trial involving the detainees, who stand accused of undermining the state security and collaborating with foreign powers, thereby exposing Mauritania to the threat of war and constitutional destabilisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

1 December saw the opening, by means of an emergency procedure, of the trial involving the detainees, who stand accused of undermining the state security and collaborating with foreign powers, thereby exposing Mauritania to the threat of war and constitutional destabilisation.

In view of the EU-Mauritania relations which the Community supports financially by means of aid amounting to EUR 104 million over the 2001-2007 period (even though it gets nothing in return by way of respect for basic human rights or the upholding of constitutional government and democracy), would the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts set out above? What action does it intend to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission is concerned, as are the Honourable Members, at political developments in Maruitania. It is perfectly aware of the facts set out and is monitoring the situation very closely. The Commission has always been in favour of stepping up political dialogue with the Mauritanian authorities in order to make them aware of the importance the EU attaches to issues surrounding respect for the rule of law. It will hold a structured political dialogue with the Government, together with the Member States, under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, to enable it to raise such issues.

Under the country strategy for Mauritania for 2002-2007, the second focal sector for aid is capacity-building and, in particular, strengthening the rule of law, democracy and the organisation of civil society, whose means of expression are sometimes limited.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/107

---

(2004/C 84 E/0144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3865/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Balearic Islands Sectoral Roads Masterplan

The Conseil Insular de Mallorca is seeking to push through with a new Roads Plan under the name ‘Specific Amendment of the Balearic Islands Sectoral Roads Masterplan’ adopted by Decree 87/1998 of 16 October.

The proposed amendment, which will be adopted on 1 December 2003 in the Conseil Insular de Mallorca, provides for building the Inca-Manacor motorway.

The environmental impact of this scheme is massive. At certain points, the Inca-Manacor section infringes on areas which are designated as protected natural species.

The proposed amendment, furthermore, is not backed up by adequate reports on its social justification. It is based exclusively on traffic density and speed reports, ignoring other issues such as mobility studies or studies of alternatives. Nor does it include studies of the repercussions of the opening of the Palma-Manacor railway link, which will reduce the road traffic concerned. The absence of all these studies is very serious, because the need for the scheme has not been demonstrated. In fact, the Inca-Manacor motorway link will be longer and more expensive than doubling the width of the current road, a perfectly good alternative solution.

The new Roads Plan which the Conseil Insular is intending to adopt has been the subject of much social dispute, with 23 000 complaints lodged — and ignored without any serious account being taken of possible alternatives. There is real concern that the environmental impact assessment, which will be carried out once the new Roads Plan is adopted, will not assess the alternatives either.

Does the Commission not believe that the line of the Inca-Manacor motorway provided for in the ‘Specific Amendment of the Sectoral Road Masterplan’ should be subjected to an environmental assessment which studies all the real alternatives, including doubling the width of the existing road, and encouraging more sustainable modes of transport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to an amendment of ‘Specific Amendment of the Balearic Islands Sectoral Roads Masterplan’ adopted by Decree 87/1998 of 16 October 2003 that the Conseil Insular de Mallorca will adopt on 1 December 2003 and that includes a proposal for new Roads Plan. The proposed amendment provides for the building of the Inca-Manacor motorway. A similar written question E-3346/03 was already posed by Mr Miquel Mayol i Raynal (1).

At present, there is no provision in Environmental Impact Assessment Community law which requires Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of their draft plans or programmes, or of proposed modifications. The position will change on 21 July 2004, the date by which Member States must complete their transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC (the so-called SEA Directive (2)), which is not applicable to plans and programmes co-financed under the current respective programming periods for Council Regulations (EC) No 1260/1999 (3) and (EC) No 1257/1999 (4). Thereafter, Member States will have to carry out an environmental assessment of plans and programmes which meet the definition in the Directive. The environmental report that forms part of the environmental assessment procedure should contain the information required in Article 5 and Annex I, including reasonable alternatives as well as an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with. In some circumstances, plans or programmes begun before 21 July 2004 but not adopted until after 21 July 2006 might also require assessment.

However, once application for the construction of the particular projects is made, then Council Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (5) and dealing with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects will be applicable. It stipulates that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location, are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annexes I and II of the Directive. The construction of motorways falls into Annex I point 7 (b) for which a mandatory environmental impact assessment has to be carried out. For other projects, such as modification of an existing motorway, Annex II applies. In this case, the national authorities have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be carried out subject to an assessment because of likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

As regards nature conservation issues, European legislation for nature conservation includes both Council Directives 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (6) (‘Habitats Directive’) and 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (7) (‘Birds Directive’). Implementation of both Directives aims to establish a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation that shall be set up under the title Natura 2000.

With the information provided by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to provide a precise assessement about the effects of the planned Inca-Manacor motorway on the proposed Natura 2000 sites in Balearic Islands, as it will be necessary to have access to maps which provide detailed information of the route selected. The map information currently available to the Commission only gives very general information as to the possible effects on some proposed areas as Sites of Community Interest (SCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC provisions. If this is the case, the Spanish authorities will need to demonstrate that they have followed the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

As further information is required, the Commission has sent a letter requesting the observations of the Spanish authorities on this issue and the possible application of the Community Directives aforementioned. The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 804.

(2)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001 (Article 3§9).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(5)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(6)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(7)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/108

---

(2004/C 84 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Impact of specific residential building schemes on SIC ES 5223037

In its reply E-3156/03 (1) on residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and its effects on the ‘Oropesa-Benicàssim’ site of Community interest, the Commission claimed that it had contacted the Spanish authorities so as to check that the requirements of Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on assessing the indirect impact of schemes on protected areas and the conservation objectives concerned were being met.

Can the Commission state whether the Spanish authorities, as laid down by the Directive, have demonstrated the complete absence of alternatives to this scheme? Can the Commission confirm that the Spanish authorities believe that the construction of the thousand chalets and the two hotels in question is an absolute necessity ‘because it is a project of public interest’? Has the Commission been informed of the compensatory measures which the Spanish authorities intend to carry out so as to guarantee that there is no negative impact on the Natura 2000 Network in this instance?

The Commission failed to respond with regard to the species protected by the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (3)) which inhabit the areas mentioned.

Does the Commission not believe that the building of these chalets and tourist installations runs flat counter to the provisions of the Birds Directive in terms of the negative impact which these building schemes will have on the protected species?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Spanish authorities have not yet replied to the request for information from the Commission concerning the urban and tourist development project in the Renegà Range. For this reason, the Commission has not yet reached any conclusions in its investigation of the issues raised.

On the other hand, the Commission considers that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (4) is not relevant to this case, as the Spanish authorities have not classified this area as a Special Protection Area and the scientific community has not included it in the inventory of Important Bird Areas.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 477.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/109

---

(2004/C 84 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Measures to tackle legionnaires' disease

On 22 October 2003 the Commissioner for Public Health and Consumer Protection, Mr Byrne, replied on behalf of the Commission to my written question on measures to tackle legionnaires' disease (E-2797/03) (1). However, his response failed to answer any of the four questions that I had raised.

| 1. | Is the Commission prepared to re-read carefully written question E-2797/03 and its answer and to provide detailed replies to the issues raised? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission prepared to re-read carefully written question E-2797/03 and its answer and to provide detailed replies to the issues raised?

| 2. | As the Commission might well imagine, the questioner, along with present and potential victims of legionnaires' disease, are less than happy about being fobbed off with an answer that leaves them none the wiser. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As the Commission might well imagine, the questioner, along with present and potential victims of legionnaires' disease, are less than happy about being fobbed off with an answer that leaves them none the wiser.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission would like to confirm that:

| 1. | There are no compulsory guidelines concerning the matter raised. The European Working Group for Legionella Infections (EWGLI) network and its operating guidelines are entirely voluntary and there are no binding rules on the matter for the Member States or for any organisation in the Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There are no compulsory guidelines concerning the matter raised. The European Working Group for Legionella Infections (EWGLI) network and its operating guidelines are entirely voluntary and there are no binding rules on the matter for the Member States or for any organisation in the Union.

| 2. | Of course it is desirable for travel organisations to provide the fullest possible information on any disease that might be of concern to those receiving services from them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Of course it is desirable for travel organisations to provide the fullest possible information on any disease that might be of concern to those receiving services from them.

As regards the questions concerning the submission by the Commission of proposals on the matter, these relate to the right of initiative of the Commission and have been fully addressed in the reply given previously to the Honourable Member's written question E-2797/03.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 756.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/110

---

(2004/C 84 E/0147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3895/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Conflicts between the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Emissions Trading Directive and the goal of ensuring security of supply: the case of Austria

Austria is supposed to increase its share of renewable energy from 70 % to 78,1 % by 2010, with the help of charges introduced under the new Emissions Trading Directive for thermal power generation. However, according to E-Control, the Austrian regulatory authority for the electricity and gas market, implementation of the Water Framework Directive will mean 5-15 % less hydroelectric power being generated than at present, and thus a reduction of approximately 1,5-4,5 TWh per year in the share of Austria's electricity generated from renewable energy sources. This reduction can only be partially compensated by the increased use of environmentally friendly energy, which is itself only made possible thanks to overly large subsidies.

If it is assumed that there will be a moderate growth in electricity consumption of between 1,7 and 3 % per year, the reduction in thermal power generation brought about by the introduction of quotas for CO2 emissions will mean an additional shortfall of 16-25 TWh per year, which will need to be met through imports. Given that gaps still exist in the 380 kV high-voltage electricity grid in Styria and Salzburg, this will make it extremely difficult to maintain a high level of security of supply, as became clear in August when there was a near-blackout. The use of imported energy would also mean a considerable drop in the share of Austria's electricity generated from renewable energy sources.

Can the Commission state what priorities it believes should be set in the national implementation of the above directives and in achieving the goals of the final report on the Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply', and how it believes it is possible to achieve an overall vision and approach given these conflicts of objectives?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission recognises that a sustainable approach to energy supply security involves reconciling energy objectives with commitments in other policy areas, such as the environment and competition. This was one of the central themes of the Commission's Green Paper on the security of energy supply (1). As stated in its final report on the Green Paper (2), the Commission is of the view that the most effective way to address these challenges is greater coordination of measures affecting security of energy supply.

The Commission is aware that Austria's renewable energy commitments are ambitious. High shares of renewable energies and the resulting positive effect regarding the reduction of Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are important environmental objectives. However, there are also other environmental aspects which need to be taken into account at the same time. The Water Framework Directive (3) is currently under implementation (environmental and economic analysis, establishment of the river basin management plans) so it is premature to quantify the decline in hydropower production at this point in time. In their recent report on the implementation of the Renewable Electricity Directive in Austria, the Austrian authorities drew the attention of the Commission to the implications of the Water Framework Directive (4) on renewable electricity production in Austria. The Commission is closely following this issue and will further strengthen the dialogue with Member States to ensure the environmental objectives of both policies without subordinating one of these two environmental aspects to the other.

On the subject of infrastructure, the Commission's recent proposals on investment in electricity infrastructure (5) aims to address the need for greater interconnections in the emerging internal power market. Such investments will increase both the potential for a real competitive market and contribute to security of supply. The strengthening of the Austrian grid is identified as one of the key projects in this regard. The proposals also call for a clear strategy relating to the ongoing supply demand balance to be developed by Member States.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 769 final.

(2)  COM(2002) 321 final.

(3)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(4)  Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(5)  COM(2003) 739 final and COM(2003) 740 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/111

---

(2004/C 84 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3898/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Otters in UK rivers

Otters are said to have returned for the first time in decades to a great many rivers in the UK, principally as a result of improved water quality and the end of otter hunting.

Will the Commission list the items of EU legislation the implementation of which by the UK Government is likely to have contributed to this positive development?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Otter Lutra lutra is subject to both the site and species protection provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). As the species is listed in Annex II of the Directive, Member States are required to designate special areas of conservation for its conservation. It is also likely to indirectly benefit from the conservation of wetlands in Natura 2000 for other species and habitat types of Community Interest. Its listing in Annex IV of the Directive requires Member States to establish a system of strict protection for it which prohibits, ‘inter alia’, all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of the species as well as deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites or resting places. The Community is also supporting the conservation of Otters in the United Kingdom through the ‘LIFE in UK rivers’ demonstration project (2) under the LIFE Regulation (3).

Improving the quality of water is also covered by a wide range of Community water legislation. The first set of Directives was aimed at specific water uses such as fish waters (Directive 78/659/EEC (4)), shellfish waters (Directive 79/923/EEC (5)) and waters for the abstraction of drinking water (Directive 75/440/EEC (6)) or specific pollutants (Directive 76/464/EEC (7)). Later on, the focus of Community water policy shifted to regulate key pollution sources such as urban wastewater (Directive 91/271/EEC (8)), nitrates from agricultural sources (Directive 91/676/EEC (9)) and industrial pollution (IPPC Directive 96/61/EC (10)). The combination of these and other measures partly affecting water quality have contributed to the significant water quality improvements seen throughout Europe in the past 30 years. However, there are still a number of areas where water quality has not reached levels to ensure the sustainable functioning of the ecosystem. An overview of trends and the current status has recently been published by the European Environment Agency (11).

The new Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (12) will further improve this positive trend by requiring coordinating management of river basins with a view to achieving ambitious environmental objectives regarding the ecological and chemical quality of surface waters.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  http://www.english-nature.org.uk/lifeinukrivers/index.html

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(4)  Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life, OJ L 222, 14.8.1978.

(5)  Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters, OJ L 281, 10.11.1979.

(6)  Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(7)  Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(8)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(9)  Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(10)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(11)  Europe's water: An indicator-based assessment, Topic report No 1/2003:

(http://reports.eea.eu.int/topic_report_2003_1/en)

(12)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/112

---

(2004/C 84 E/0149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3904/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   European satellite agency — Galileo programme

In response to two earlier questions on the European satellite agency, the Commission stated on 23 July 2002 (in Answer P-1940/02 (1)) that, following the preliminary development phase of the Galileo programme, which would be managed by a joint undertaking, the management of the deployment and operational phases would be entrusted to a private entity (concession) following a call for tenders. At the time, no decision had yet been made on the possible setting up of a European multimodal satellite navigation agency. The agency's location and resources and the number of people it would employ were thus not known. In its reply of 25 February 2003 to the second question (E-3919/02 (2)), the Commission said that the private entity holding the Galileo concession would take over responsibility for the system's deployment and operational phases and would decide, according to its own criteria (efficiency, cost, etc.), where to set up its company head office and operations centre(s). Furthermore, during the second half of 2003, the Commission would be sending the Council and Parliament a proposal for the establishment of a public structure, whose seat would be determined at a later date.

Given the probability of a decision shortly being taken on the agency's location, there is renewed interest in Italy in the issue of whether the seat can be brought to the country's capital city. Representatives of the Lazio Regional Council and the Rome Provincial and City Councils have come together with businessmen and researchers to sign a resolution putting Rome forward once again as a candidate for the agency's seat.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

| 1. | whether it has already submitted to the Council and Parliament a proposal for the establishment of the public structure referred to, and when the call for tenders is to be issued? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it has already submitted to the Council and Parliament a proposal for the establishment of the public structure referred to, and when the call for tenders is to be issued?

| 2. | whether Rome can be considered to fulfil all the requirements to stand as a candidate, and which other European cities are standing as candidates? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether Rome can be considered to fulfil all the requirements to stand as a candidate, and which other European cities are standing as candidates?

| 3. | what is the deadline for the decision on the European satellite agency's seat? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what is the deadline for the decision on the European satellite agency's seat?

| 4. | what funding has been earmarked for the project? |
| --- | --- |

4.

what funding has been earmarked for the project?

| 5. | how many jobs are expected to be created? |
| --- | --- |

5.

how many jobs are expected to be created?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

On 31 July 2003 the Commission transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programme (3) which is now being discussed within the two institutions. The proposal provides for the setting up of a Supervisory Authority which will be the system's public licensing authority.

In November 2003 the Galileo joint undertaking, active since mid-2003, launched a call for tender to select the private concession holder who will be responsible for the deployment and operational phases of the programme.

The Commission proposes that the Supervisory Authority's headquarters should be in Brussels but a final decision has not yet been taken. As the private concession holder has not yet been selected, no indication can be given as to where their headquarters will be.

The Commission hopes that the proposal for a Regulation on the future management structures will be adopted during the Irish presidency so that the Supervisory Authority can then be set up as soon as possible.

The financing plan for the deployment and operational phases of Galileo has not yet been finalised, as it will depend on the respective contributions of the public sector and the private concession holder.

The Supervisory Authority will employ a limited number of people (less than fifty). As for the concession holder, no indication can be given at this stage.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 249.

(2)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 146.

(3)  COM(2003)471 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/114

---

(2004/C 84 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3906/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Single currency and cost-of-living increases

While marking a real step forward in the process of further stepping up economic and financial interaction within the EU, the introduction of the single currency has also led to a significant increase in prices. This assertion is borne out in Italy by the findings of a large number of surveys conducted by authoritative statistical institutes (including ISTAT) and by detailed investigations conducted by the Guardia di Finanza. The same situation is also to be found in all the other EU Member States, although to differing degrees. With a view to combating the prices increase the Italian Government has taken a number of significant steps, including the establishment of a fund of EUR 5 million in 2003 and EUR 20 million in 2004 to finance measures instigated by municipal authorities and chambers of commerce, by common accord, with a view to promoting and supporting the drawing up of lists of everyday consumer goods and providing the general public, including via the Internet, with lists of commercial outlets at which all or some of those goods are available, indicating how attractive they are in terms of price. In his capacity as President-in-Office of the Ecofin Council, the Italian Finance Minister, Mr Tremonti, has proposed that the current EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins be replaced with banknotes. The ECB's response to this proposal, which has the support of many Member States, including France, has been extremely cautious. The bank has dampened enthusiasm by pointing out that, even with the best will in the world, new euro banknotes could not be introduced before the start of the second stage in the euro's production, in three years time.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

| 1. | whether any Community policies aimed at countering the current inflationary trend, which is more pronounced than expected, are currently in place? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether any Community policies aimed at countering the current inflationary trend, which is more pronounced than expected, are currently in place?

| 2. | whether there are any examples of good practice in this area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are any examples of good practice in this area?

| 3. | whether any European programmes and funding schemes have been established or are planned with a view to assisting public institutions, local authorities and consumer associations to combat the price rises? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether any European programmes and funding schemes have been established or are planned with a view to assisting public institutions, local authorities and consumer associations to combat the price rises?

| 4. | what it is doing to ensure that the EU public is aware of and understands the present situation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

what it is doing to ensure that the EU public is aware of and understands the present situation?

| 5. | whether, given that various surveys have shown that a large majority of European citizens would support the replacement of some euro coins with banknotes, it would be willing to argue the case in front of the ECB and the competent Community institutions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

whether, given that various surveys have shown that a large majority of European citizens would support the replacement of some euro coins with banknotes, it would be willing to argue the case in front of the ECB and the competent Community institutions?

| 6. | whether a firm date has been set for the issue of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes? |
| --- | --- |

6.

whether a firm date has been set for the issue of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission would like to recall to mind that the European Central Bank (ECB) is responsible for maintaining price stability in the euro area as a whole, while it is up to the Member States to address national inflation developments that are deemed to be unwarranted.
  The latest data available indicate that consumer price inflation, as measured by the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), stood at 2,2 % for the euro area as a whole between November 2002 and November 2003. In Italy, the annual rate of HICP inflation stood at 2,8 % in November 2003 which is the third highest rate among the Member States. While these figures are somewhat higher than expected a few months ago, the latest Economic Forecast by the Commission indicates that inflation will fall gradually over the course of 2004. One should also bear in mind the sizable differences experienced between actual and perceived inflation in several Member States after the euro cash changeover when addressing the issue of inflation and possible effects from this changeover. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission would like to recall to mind that the European Central Bank (ECB) is responsible for maintaining price stability in the euro area as a whole, while it is up to the Member States to address national inflation developments that are deemed to be unwarranted.

The latest data available indicate that consumer price inflation, as measured by the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), stood at 2,2 % for the euro area as a whole between November 2002 and November 2003. In Italy, the annual rate of HICP inflation stood at 2,8 % in November 2003 which is the third highest rate among the Member States. While these figures are somewhat higher than expected a few months ago, the latest Economic Forecast by the Commission indicates that inflation will fall gradually over the course of 2004. One should also bear in mind the sizable differences experienced between actual and perceived inflation in several Member States after the euro cash changeover when addressing the issue of inflation and possible effects from this changeover.

| 3. | The Commission, within the terms indicated in the EC Treaty (Article 153), contributes to protecting the economic interests of consumers and to promoting the effective enforcement of consumer protection rules. However, the measures undertaken with these aims, though they may have an impact on the prices of goods and services, cannot be considered from the point of view of the maintaining of price stability, which is a task of the ECB, as mentioned above.
  Referring directly to the introduction of the euro notes and coins, the Commission promoted a number of initiatives aimed at preparing consumers to better manage the changeover to the new currency. Special attention was paid to disfavoured people (the elderly, the disabled, people living in peripheral regions, etc.). Within the programme ‘Euro Made Easy’, specific schemes were funded with a view to assisting public authorities and consumer associations to anticipate possible problems linked with the introduction of the new notes and coins. These initiatives were helpful for the success of the changeover to the new currency. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission, within the terms indicated in the EC Treaty (Article 153), contributes to protecting the economic interests of consumers and to promoting the effective enforcement of consumer protection rules. However, the measures undertaken with these aims, though they may have an impact on the prices of goods and services, cannot be considered from the point of view of the maintaining of price stability, which is a task of the ECB, as mentioned above.

Referring directly to the introduction of the euro notes and coins, the Commission promoted a number of initiatives aimed at preparing consumers to better manage the changeover to the new currency. Special attention was paid to disfavoured people (the elderly, the disabled, people living in peripheral regions, etc.). Within the programme ‘Euro Made Easy’, specific schemes were funded with a view to assisting public authorities and consumer associations to anticipate possible problems linked with the introduction of the new notes and coins. These initiatives were helpful for the success of the changeover to the new currency.

| 4. | Both the Commission and the ECB review the current state of the euro area economy on a permanent basis. In addition to standard surveys of the real and nominal aspects of the economy, these also include more in-depth studies on ad-hoc topics to highlight current fields of special interest, such as euro area inflation and inflation perceptions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Both the Commission and the ECB review the current state of the euro area economy on a permanent basis. In addition to standard surveys of the real and nominal aspects of the economy, these also include more in-depth studies on ad-hoc topics to highlight current fields of special interest, such as euro area inflation and inflation perceptions.

| 5. | The latest Eurobarometer survey (published on 15 December 2003) indicates that only a minority (31 %) of euro area citizens is in favour of a EUR 1 banknote. Support for such a banknote mainly originates from two Member States, where a majority (70 % in Greece, 76 % in Italy), would welcome the introduction of a EUR 1 banknote. However, in the 10 other euro-area Member States, there is a clear majority (exceeding 60 % in all cases and even reaching almost 90 % in a number of Member States) against the introduction of such an additional banknote. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The latest Eurobarometer survey (published on 15 December 2003) indicates that only a minority (31 %) of euro area citizens is in favour of a EUR 1 banknote. Support for such a banknote mainly originates from two Member States, where a majority (70 % in Greece, 76 % in Italy), would welcome the introduction of a EUR 1 banknote. However, in the 10 other euro-area Member States, there is a clear majority (exceeding 60 % in all cases and even reaching almost 90 % in a number of Member States) against the introduction of such an additional banknote.

| 6. | In accordance with the EC Treaty, any decision on banknote denominations would have to be taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) which has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. The ECB has decided to reconsider the issuance of very low-denomination banknotes in autumn 2004 when more experience on the use of euro banknotes and coins inside and also outside the euro area is available. If a very low-denomination banknote were to be issued, it would be part of the second series of euro banknotes, to be introduced towards the end of this decade. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In accordance with the EC Treaty, any decision on banknote denominations would have to be taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) which has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. The ECB has decided to reconsider the issuance of very low-denomination banknotes in autumn 2004 when more experience on the use of euro banknotes and coins inside and also outside the euro area is available. If a very low-denomination banknote were to be issued, it would be part of the second series of euro banknotes, to be introduced towards the end of this decade.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/115

---

(2004/C 84 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3909/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Framework directive

In the light of Article 7 and recitals 36 and 37 of the framework directive (2002/21/EC (1)), what action has been taken to guarantee that the activities of such bodies are transparent for the purposes of interaction with industry and clearly defining who is responsible for harmonisation?

The new framework gives the ERG a purely consultative role, while the crucial role of ensuring that the framework is implemented in a consistent manner should be retained by the Commission, on the basis of the powers conferred on it by the Treaty. What is the Commission doing within the ERG framework to make sure that it retains its proper role of ensuring that the new framework is applied in a consistent manner, in accordance with the objectives laid down by Community law?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive) is addressed to national regulatory authorities of the Member States in the discharge of their duties for ex ante regulation under the regulatory framework for electronic communications. Under the terms of Article 7, national regulators must cooperate with each other ‘in a transparent manner to ensure the consistent application, in all Member States’ of the provisions of the new framework. As the Honourable Member has noted, the terms of the legislative provisions in question require transparency from Community regulators.

In addition, as regards interaction with industry, the procedures laid down in the Framework Directive clearly provide for the involvement of interested parties in the proposed measures to be adopted by such national regulators. Prior to taking any action that will have a significant impact on the relevant market, for example, to designate an undertaking as having significant market power, an NRA must conduct a public consultation for a reasonable period as laid down in Article 6 of the Framework Directive. During this period, industry and other interested parties are able to comment upon the measure. Member States are required to establish a single information point so that all active consultations can easily be accessed by third parties.

As foreseen in recitals 36 and 37, the Commission has created the European Regulators Group (ERG) which brings together the national regulatory authorities of the Member States. The ERG is a tool to contribute to a coherent and harmonised application of the Community acquis. In this regard, it must also be recognised that the members of the ERG are independent regulators in their own right and are charged with the day-to-day application of the new regulatory framework, to the extent that they are empowered to act under national law implementing Community law.

Under Article 211 of the Treaty on European Union and of the EC Treaty, the Commission is obliged to ensure that the provisions of the Treaties and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant to them [i.e. any directives adopted] are applied. The Commission's role in relation to Community law is therefore to oversee the correct application of the rules but not to substitute for the NRAs themselves.

The European Regulators Group is part of the institutional infrastructure foreseen by the new electronic communications regulatory framework to ensure that the relevant regulatory rules are consistently applied in all Member States. It was created by the Commission to advise and assist it by, ‘inter alia’, providing an interface between national authorities and the Commission so as to contribute to the development of the internal market, which is one of the principal objectives of the EC Treaty, and to facilitate co-operation between the Commission and NRAs in a transparent way to achieve consistency of application of the regulatory framework. The ERG serves as a body for ‘reflection, debate and advice’ in the electronic communications field (2). It is therefore clear that the ERG is an advisory group to the Commission and not an implementation body in its own right. Its primary roles are to advise the Commission and to assist in the consistent application of the regulatory framework. This means that the ERG actively contributes to the preparation of supplementary measures, such as recommendations, under the new regulatory framework by providing expert advice to the Commission, but responsibility for implementation of Community law remains a Commission task under the EC Treaty.

The possibility for the ERG to carry out activities in its own name, such as publication of consultation documents and a work programme, in no way calls into question the respective allocation of tasks and the institutional balance at stake. These latter activities are simply a result of the ERG fulfilling the task it was created for. The ERG was established under a Commission Decision and acts within the scope of that Decision.

The creation of the ERG does not call into question Commission control and supervision of the application of the new regulatory framework, nor the Commission's right of initiative under the EC Treaty.

The Commission's powers and duties under Community law stem from the provisions of the EC Treaty that oblige it to ensure that Community law is applied and enforced correctly. Working with the ERG does not involve any delegation to the ERG of Commission Treaty powers for enforcement and supervision of Community law. The Commission therefore considers that its role as guardian of Community law will not be jeopardised by the work of the ERG and the Commission's participation in it. Furthermore, the Commission will fulfil its role of ensuring that Community law, and the new framework in particular, is applied in a consistent manner, in accordance with the objectives laid down by Community law itself.

---

(1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

(2)  Commission Decision 2002/627/EC of 29 July 2002 establishing the European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks and Services, Recital 7, OJ L 200, 30.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/117

---

(2004/C 84 E/0152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3912/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Oil extraction in the North Sea

Can the Commission state, as regards the Danish government's agreement with A.P. Møller and the Dansk Undergrund Consortium on the conditions for oil extraction over the next 40 years in the North Sea, whether the clause in the agreement protecting the concession holders from additional taxation, has been notified as a state aid in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty? If the agreement has not been notified, can the Commission state whether agreements between governments and private concession holders which grant the latter tax relief for a long period in the future should be regarded as state aids?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission would point out that it was not given prior notification of the agreement to which the Honourable Member refers under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. However, the Danish authorities have sent the detailed documents on the agreement. These documents are currently under study, and the Commission cannot at this stage give a decision as to the type of measure.

The Commission would recall that as a general rule tax relief confined to certain activities or certain firms could constitute state aid.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/117

---

(2004/C 84 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3928/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Forests and building cooperatives in Greece

In her answer to my question E-3196/03, Commissioner Wallström states that ‘the Commission is not aware of statistics or information on unauthorised building in different Member States, thus the Commission can not assess the scale of unauthorised building in Greece.’ She goes on to state that ‘the Commission has never received information from the Greek authorities about the standards of workmanship of unauthorised buildings in Greece.’ In the same answer she states: The Regulation on ‘Forest Focus’, that has recently been approved, includes a definition offorest'and'other wooded land', applicable to the actions that the Regulation will support.' Finally she points out that: ‘The issue of the members of building co-operatives who have not yet received land although paying contributions to the building co-operative is a matter for national authorities and as such is regulated by national laws.’

I regret to note that the answer provided by the (very active) Commissioner is unsatisfactory, since a report specifically on unauthorised buildings was published in the Greek press on 5 December 2003, stating that the shoddy workmanship of such buildings ‘will fill Athens with coffins in the event of an earthquake measuring 6 on the Richter scale’, while on the same day the Greek media were practically unanimous in condemning the government's adoption of a law which threatens the survival of the few remaining forests in Greece. It is also noticeable that the Commissioner does not seem to be concerned about the fact that thousands of Greek citizens have been paying contributions to building cooperatives — often for decades — without receiving any benefits.

Will the Commission say whether under Community law this represents a violation of the rights — and exploitation — of thousands of Community nationals who pay contributions to cooperatives without receiving any benefit whatsoever? Since the Greek authorities have not forwarded information about unauthorised buildings, why does the Commission itself not request details about workmanship? Will Commissioner Wallström say what definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘wooded land’ are contained in the Directive to which she refers in her answer?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that is not aware of the content of media reports on unauthorised buildings in Greece, which were published in the Greek press on 5 December 2003. As stated in its previous reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-3196/03 (1) on 4 December 2003, the Commission has no statistics or information on unauthorised building in different Member States. As there is no binding Community legislation regarding building activity and standards, the procedures for granting building permissions are exclusively regulated by national legislation and the issue falls within the competence of the Greek authorities. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to request details about workmanship standards applied to illegal (unauthorised) buildings in Greece.

With regard to the definition of forest and wooded land, the Commission indicated in its first reply that the Union Forestry Strategy does not include an Union wide definition of forest and wooded land. National definitions of forests and forest land applies for Community legislation and financial instruments. The Commission would like to stress that Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003, concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (2) provides definitions for ‘forest’, ‘other wooded land’ and ‘other land’. These definitions have to be respected and implemented by Member States for the purposes of the above mentioned Regulation and the monitoring actions that the Regulation supports, however, their application is bound solely to this Regulation.

Regarding the issue of citizens who pay contributions to building co-operatives without receiving any benefits as yet, the Commission would like to maintain its position, according to which there is no Community competence and the issue is regulated by national laws.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 788.

(2)  OJ L 324, 11.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/118

---

(2004/C 84 E/0154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3930/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

Under Article 26(4) of N 1914/1990, ‘all the special arrangements which apply to the Agricultural Bank of Greece, with particular reference to its substantive and procedural privileges, to its immunities in respect of tax and other matters, to its debt instruments, to the guaranteeing of its debts and in general to its legal personality as an entity possessing rights and subject to obligations’ remain in force and are applied unchanged even following the conversion of the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) into a limited liability company. On the basis of this provision the ATE, in its transactions with its customers, makes use of the privileges granted to it by Articles 8 — 15 and 34(8) of N 4332/1929, under which the legal, procedural and substantive guarantees for those dealing with the ATE, and in particular its debtors, are set aside. The Commission has also received a complaint on this subject from the firm Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. (reply from the Agriculture Directorate-General No 31427/24.11.2003).

Since the retention and application by the ATE of the above-mentioned privileges, which is contrary to Community law, is onerous for those doing business with it and deprives them of all rights of defence, what does the Commission intend to do to put a stop to the violation of the rights of those dealing with the ATE and to eliminate the distortion of competition conditions with respect to other credit institutions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission confirms that it has just received a complaint concerning the Agricultural Bank of Greece and therefore is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/119 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/119

---

(2004/C 84 E/0155)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3931/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Rehabilitation of areas devastated by the summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal

The summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal devastated 410 000 hectares, i.e. 5 % of Portugal's landmass and 12 % of its woodlands, destroying numerous Natura 2000 Network areas, various cork oak, holm oak and oak forests, causing numerous deaths, destroying homes, killing animals and destroying crops in some of the country's most fragile and deprived rural regions.

Support provided under the aegis of the Solidarity Fund, although extremely useful, is nowhere like equal to the enormous task of rehabilitating incalculably valuable natural heritage on this scale, and a rural economy which is under threat of total disappearance.

At the Budgetary Committee meeting which discussed the Solidarity Fund contribution to Portugal, it was claimed that a total of EUR 180 million was going to be reprogrammed from Portuguese Structural Funds to cope with the challenge.

Could the Commission explain:

| 1. | Why amounts programmed for the 2000-2003 Structural Funds, and not yet taken up, cannot be reprogrammed to this end? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why amounts programmed for the 2000-2003 Structural Funds, and not yet taken up, cannot be reprogrammed to this end?

| 2. | Whether the Portuguese authorities have already submitted specific proposals for reprogramming the EUR 180 million, and whether this amount is earmarked for rehabilitating the natural heritage and the rural economy of the areas devastated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether the Portuguese authorities have already submitted specific proposals for reprogramming the EUR 180 million, and whether this amount is earmarked for rehabilitating the natural heritage and the rural economy of the areas devastated?

| 3. | What other means it thinks could be used to support this rehabilitation which, while of direct concern to Portugal, is of no less concern to Europe? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What other means it thinks could be used to support this rehabilitation which, while of direct concern to Portugal, is of no less concern to Europe?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Solidarity Fund provided EUR 48,5 million of funding for urgent infrastructure restoration work following the summer 2003 fires in Portugal. Both further infrastructure restoration work and restoration of production potential in forestry and agriculture can be assisted using reprogrammed Structural Fund appropriations or from the Cohesion Fund. It falls to the programme management authorities in the affected zones to make proposals to this end. In addition, following mid-term evaluation of the national Community support framework the Portuguese authorities have confirmed their intention of using approximately EUR 180 million of the performance reserve to make good damage caused by the fires and reinforce preventive measures.

Negotiations with the Portuguese authorities are in progress. We cannot at present provide complete information on the programmes and measures concerned.

We attach great importance to action to help avert natural disasters. In the case of fire prevention various types of measure can be supported: increasing fire-fighting capacity, deployment of means of detecting and preventing fires, anti-erosion work, afforestation observing fire prevention standards etc.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/120

---

(2004/C 84 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3934/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   US visa provisions which result in refusal to permit the return of Europeans who have a permanent residence and permanent job in the USA

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, while people who are nationals of an EU Member State are admitted to the United States of America as visitors without visas, since 2003 this has no longer been the case for Europeans who live and work in the USA because when they return from abroad they must have a business visa, while — just like other visitors — they must waive the right to the assistance of a lawyer in legal disputes with the authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, while people who are nationals of an EU Member State are admitted to the United States of America as visitors without visas, since 2003 this has no longer been the case for Europeans who live and work in the USA because when they return from abroad they must have a business visa, while — just like other visitors — they must waive the right to the assistance of a lawyer in legal disputes with the authorities?

| 2. | Is the Commission furthermore aware that when Europeans who have already resided in the USA for a long time or are married to a US citizen return to the USA, the US customs service may refuse them admission as visitors, arguing that they are seeking to enter the USA under false pretences and illegally, and that they may then be deported from the country and ordered not to return for the next five years? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission furthermore aware that when Europeans who have already resided in the USA for a long time or are married to a US citizen return to the USA, the US customs service may refuse them admission as visitors, arguing that they are seeking to enter the USA under false pretences and illegally, and that they may then be deported from the country and ordered not to return for the next five years?

| 3. | Does the Commission have indications that such refusal of permission to return is, or is becoming, an instrument by means of which to compel Europeans in America to sell their homes and businesses as cheaply as possible and to resign from their jobs, to the benefit of US nationals? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission have indications that such refusal of permission to return is, or is becoming, an instrument by means of which to compel Europeans in America to sell their homes and businesses as cheaply as possible and to resign from their jobs, to the benefit of US nationals?

| 4. | Do the EU Member States have comparable ways of denying US nationals who are resident within their territory the right to reside indefinitely, return or work? Is this right also exercised in practice, and are Americans deported and kept out of Europe for long periods on this ground without having engaged in any criminal activities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the EU Member States have comparable ways of denying US nationals who are resident within their territory the right to reside indefinitely, return or work? Is this right also exercised in practice, and are Americans deported and kept out of Europe for long periods on this ground without having engaged in any criminal activities?

| 5. | How will Europeans in America and Americans in Europe be placed on an equal footing as regards their rights, obligations and exclusion, on the basis of reciprocity? When will this be done? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How will Europeans in America and Americans in Europe be placed on an equal footing as regards their rights, obligations and exclusion, on the basis of reciprocity? When will this be done?

Source: TV Nederland 2, Twee Vandaag, 9 December 2003.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission has no information that the United States authorities refuse the re-entry of EU citizens, who are in the possession of valid United States residence permits and fulfil the requirements for a lawful entry and residence. In addition, the Commission has no indication whatsoever that the United States authorities have tried to establish such a practice as insinuated by the Honourable Member.

However, in view of recent incidents, which have attracted some media attention, the Commission would like to note that most EU citizens, who are in the possession of a machine-readable passport, fall under the visa waiver programme of the United States, if the purpose of their short-term stay is tourism or short-term business. Any other purpose, such as family reunification, requires a visa, which has in principle to be requested in advance at the responsible United States consular post abroad or by the family member, who is a United States national. Persons, who have received a visa from a consular post, have the right of appeal to an immigration judge, if problems occur during the immigration procedure at the point of entry.

A different matter concerns persons, whose visa application is not yet decided or who have not applied for a visa in advance, e.g. because they believed that they would fall under the visa-waiver programme. The United States authorities may reject these persons, if they try to obtain residence under false pretences or if they previously breached immigration rules. They can be returned immediately by the immigration authorities at the point of entry without the possibility of judicial remedy at this stage, even if another immigration procedure or visa application is pending. Any dispute has to be settled from abroad with the assistance of the consular services.

In principle, the Member States apply similar systems to ensure that applications for immigration or residence are tabled abroad and decided by the consular services in advance of the entry. Border posts do only under very exceptional circumstances issue entry visas. Member States have the possibility to refuse entry or residence to any national of a third-country, if the provisions on entry and residence are not fulfilled. This does also concern persons from third countries, such as the United States, whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to possess a short-term visa when crossing the external borders. If, for instance, the authorities discover that the purpose of entry is not compliant with the visa exemption, the person can be rejected. The possibility to take legal action against such decisions differs among Member States.

Moreover, if somebody exceeds the duration of the visa-free residence of three months (so-called overstayers), removal procedures can be initiated. Finally, persons, who violated immigration laws, can be banned from a legal re-entry according to national law. The duration of the re-entry ban depends also on national law.

The Commission has no concrete figures on United States nationals, who have been subject to removal procedures in Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/121

---

(2004/C 84 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3939/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Failure by drivers of refuse and gritting lorries to comply with the rules on driving and rest periods when carrying out public service tasks

Over the Christmas period and during the winter the workload facing drivers of refuse and gritting lorries, whose duties in Germany include some public service tasks, is such that they are unable to comply with the rules governing driving and rest periods for drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

This state of affairs prompts the following questions, which concern both public-sector employers and the employees in question in Germany:

| — | Can derogations be granted from the rules governing driving and rest periods when drivers are performing public service tasks? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can derogations be granted from the rules governing driving and rest periods when drivers are performing public service tasks?

| — | If so, by how many hours can maximum driving periods be exceeded in such cases? |
| --- | --- |

—

If so, by how many hours can maximum driving periods be exceeded in such cases?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Regulation which governs driving time and rest periods for drivers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1), sets out a list of exemptions in Article 4. Under Article 4(6) vehicles which are used for highway maintenance and control as well as refuse collection and disposal are exempt from the Regulation's provisions. It therefore follows that for the period in which these vehicles carry out such activities, they are excluded from the Regulation's provisions. Thus drivers of the two categories of vehicle mentioned — refuse lorries and gritting vehicles — are not subject to the Regulation's provisions.

This being so, only certain provisions of the general working time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (2), as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 (3)) are applicable to such mobile workers, including, amongst others, the requirements that they should have adequate rest, and that they should work 48 hours per week on average within a reference period of four months that can be extended, by the Member State concerned, up to 12 months.

In addition, Member States may make national rules to cover these particular drivers.

---

(1)  OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3)  OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/122

---

(2004/C 84 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3952/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Standards on laying gas pipes

Can the Commission inform me what standards are in force in Europe so far as the laying of gas pipes through domestic properties is concerned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission does not have any competence on the question of the grant of rights of way for laying gas pipelines through domestic properties, which entirely falls under the competence of Member States. As a consequence, the Commission does not dispose of any information on corresponding standards in force in Europe.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/122

---

(2004/C 84 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3963/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Geroi Sevastopolya — Safety at Sea

The Russian petrol tanker Geroi Sevastopolya (‘Heroes of Sebastopol’) — a 24-year-old single-hull vessel transporting 50 million tonnes of fuel oil — is following a course similar to that of the ‘Prestige’, which one year ago caused an environmental disaster in Spanish waters, and over the next few days it will sail through international waters close to Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal.

The Californian company Westport Petroleum has chartered the vessel in question to transport its cargo from Latvia to Singapore via the Strait of Gibraltar, the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, taking three or four weeks for the journey.

Having inspected the vessel, inspectors appointed by the Commission concluded that there were no grounds for preventing the vessel from setting sail.

The Spanish and Portuguese navies have announced that they will not authorise the Geroi Sevastopolya to sail through their exclusive economic zones.

The Commission has expressed its intention to keep a close eye on the vessel's progress (even if it remains within international waters) and at the most recent Council meeting of transport ministers it called upon the ten acceding countries to enforce the ban on single-hull vessels with immediate effect, without waiting until 1 May 2004.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

| — | What information does the Commission hold regarding the Geroi Sevastopolya's current progress? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does the Commission hold regarding the Geroi Sevastopolya's current progress?

| — | Does the Commission still believe the vessel to be seaworthy? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission still believe the vessel to be seaworthy?

| — | What flanking measures and emergency action has the Commission taken or is it intending to take? |
| --- | --- |

—

What flanking measures and emergency action has the Commission taken or is it intending to take?

| — | What response has it received to the call it issued to the acceding countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

What response has it received to the call it issued to the acceding countries?

| — | What recent action has the Commission taken vis-à-vis the Member States and its international partners with a view to agreeing and implementing more stringent and more effective rules governing safety at sea? |
| --- | --- |

—

What recent action has the Commission taken vis-à-vis the Member States and its international partners with a view to agreeing and implementing more stringent and more effective rules governing safety at sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission's attention was drawn to the case of the Russian single-hull tanker Geroi Sevastopolya, which was due to leave the Latvian port of Ventspils bound for Singapore, carrying around 50 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil along the coasts of Europe on its way.

On 6 December 2003, the ship left the port of Ventspils and passed through Danish territorial waters, where a deep-sea pilot came on board and a patrol of Danish marines escorted the ship until it rounded Skagen, the northernmost point of Denmark, on 9 December 2003. The ship then entered the North Sea, passing through German and Dutch territorial waters. On 11 December 2003, the ship negotiated the Strait of Dover and entered the Channel in the British area of jurisdiction. The ship left the Channel on the evening of 12 December 2003 and, within the jurisdiction of the French Maritime Prefecture of the Atlantic, headed into the Ushant traffic separation scheme. The Geroi Sevastopolya then steered a course for the Cape of Good Hope, choosing to reach Asia via the southern route rather than use the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. The Geroi Sevastopolya left European waters on 18 December 2003.

A team of inspectors from several EU countries, coordinated by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), inspected the ship before it set sail from Ventspils. The inspectors found no grounds warranting detention of the vessel by the Latvian authorities.

A crisis group was set up between the Commission and the EMSA to track the ship from the time it set sail from the port of Ventspils until it left European waters. The EMSA remained in permanent contact with the competent maritime authorities of the countries whose waters the ship passed through, and received regular reports from them on the tanker's situation and exact position.

With regard to the accession countries affected by the Geroi Sevastopolya affair — particularly the Baltic countries and especially Latvia — the Latvian authorities cooperated fully to facilitate the work of the team of inspectors coordinated by the EMSA, which acted with the assistance and under the responsibility of the Latvian inspectors who had inspected the vessel in the context of port State control. Moreover, on the basis of an Estonian proposal, the Environment Ministers of the three Baltic Republics have adopted a proposal to bring forward the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (1), which entered into force in the EU on 21 October 2003, prohibiting the transport of heavy grades of oil by single-hull tankers.

The Commission wants to strengthen Community legislation on maritime safety still further, both by adopting the post-‘Prestige’ measures and by preparing a new series of measures by mid-2004 aimed at strengthening maritime safety. The Union will also continue to act in the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to increase maritime safety at global level. Following a new EU proposal, unanimously supported by the accession countries, the IMO adopted an amendment to the Marpol Convention in December 2003 incorporating, at international level, provisions similar to those of the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1726/03.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers, OJ L 249, 1.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/124

---

(2004/C 84 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor's office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union

According to an article that appeared in the newspaper La Sicilia on 12 December 2003, entitled ‘Catania — EUR 5 million EU fraud’:

| — | members of the Guardia di Finanza's excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling EUR 5 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

members of the Guardia di Finanza's excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling EUR 5 million;

| — | the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area; |
| --- | --- |

—

the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area;

| — | however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein and Luxembourg; |
| --- | --- |

—

however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein and Luxembourg;

| — | around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company; |
| --- | --- |

—

around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company;

| — | a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese; |
| --- | --- |

—

a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese;

| — | in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and imported from there; |
| --- | --- |

—

in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and imported from there;

| — | invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of the fictitious costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of the fictitious costs.

Is the Commission aware of these events, and what measures has it taken or will it take in this regard? Has OLAF been notified of this situation, and has it launched or will it launch an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company on charges of defrauding the Union.

As the judicial proceedings are already in progress at the Catania public prosecutor's office in Italy OLAF would be prepared to provide any assistance that the judicial authorities concerned might request.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/125

---

(2004/C 84 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework

Given that:

| — | In letters dated 31 March, 29 April and 25 November the questioner asked the Regional Policy DG for access — by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents — to the final assessment report on the multiregional operational programme on water resources in the Objective 1 regions - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 - CSF 1994-1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

In letters dated 31 March, 29 April and 25 November the questioner asked the Regional Policy DG for access — by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents — to the final assessment report on the multiregional operational programme on water resources in the Objective 1 regions - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 - CSF 1994-1999.

| — | Each time the Commission replied that it was waiting until the end of the programme when the documents would be available and then that it was waiting a few more months, the next deadline specified being January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

Each time the Commission replied that it was waiting until the end of the programme when the documents would be available and then that it was waiting a few more months, the next deadline specified being January 2004.

| — | On 19 November 2002, in its press release 47/2002 on Special Report 1/2002 concerning the multiregional operational programme for water resources — CSF 1994-1999 — the Court of Auditors pointed out, pending certification of the expenditure balance, which was expected to be forwarded during 2002, the achievement of two not insignificant results: full utilisation of the Community funds and completion of the planned measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 19 November 2002, in its press release 47/2002 on Special Report 1/2002 concerning the multiregional operational programme for water resources — CSF 1994-1999 — the Court of Auditors pointed out, pending certification of the expenditure balance, which was expected to be forwarded during 2002, the achievement of two not insignificant results: full utilisation of the Community funds and completion of the planned measures.

Can the Commission say:

| — | when Italy sent the final assessment report, or what the timetable was for the final closure of the programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

when Italy sent the final assessment report, or what the timetable was for the final closure of the programme;

| — | whether and how many times it asked for explanations about and corrections to the final report; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether and how many times it asked for explanations about and corrections to the final report;

| — | whether it is normal for a programme, which was supposed to be concluded in 1999, to be concluded four years later and why, one year after the actual conclusion, the final report is still not available? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is normal for a programme, which was supposed to be concluded in 1999, to be concluded four years later and why, one year after the actual conclusion, the final report is still not available?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the final assessment report from the national authorities reached us on 24 November 2003.

In his second question he speaks of the ‘final report’ and not of the ‘final assessment report’. These are in fact two different documents.

The ‘final report’, which is required before action can be taken to close the programme, was sent by Italy on 7 March 2003, i.e. within the time limit set in Article 52(5) 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2).

In a note of 12 May we then asked for further information on this ‘final report’ and by a note of 24 November received a full reply from Italy.

On that basis we sent a proposal for closure to Italy on 4 December, and received Italy's assent to this on 16 January.

In reply to the Honourable Member's last question, the programme was closed in line with the Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 procedures.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/126

---

(2004/C 84 E/0162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3985/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Sourcing of timber for the refurbishment of Commission buildings

What timbers are being used in the refurbishment of the Berlaymont Building?

Which companies have supplied these timbers, and what evidence was requested by the Commission, and what evidence was provided by the suppliers, to confirm that all the timbers being used come from legal and sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

In line with its policy of green housekeeping, the Commission's technical buildings specification rules provide that any timber used in the refurbishment of Commission-owned buildings must be sourced from environmentally sustainable managed forests. Proof of this can be provided by forest certification schemes such as the PEFC (Pan European Forest Certification) or the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) label.

In relation to the renovation of the Berlaymont building, the Commission explicitly required that Berlaymont 2000 SA (the management company owned by the Belgian State) procured timber as described above.

As Berlaymont 2000 SA is the awarding authority responsible for all calls for tenders related to this renovation, the names of the companies which have supplied the timber are not currently available to the Commission.

The Honourable Member may wish to know that an examination of the compliance with the requirements regarding the sustainability of the timber will be carried out by the Commission during its acceptance procedure for the building, and production of documentary evidence of compliance with legislative and contractual requirements will be required.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/127

---

(2004/C 84 E/0163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Radioactive waste dumps in Sicily

It is feared that radioactive waste dumps are being located in the mines of Pasquasia (Enna) and Realmonte (Agrigento) in Sicily.

It seems that ENEA considered these sites to be suitable and that they are on a specific list drawn up by the European Union.

As well as being subject to earthquakes, the areas concerned have development potential for agriculture and tourism and are therefore totally unsuitable for accommodating highly toxic waste.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what preliminary scientific research was carried out in order to choose the storage sites; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what preliminary scientific research was carried out in order to choose the storage sites;

| 2. | whether it does not consider in any event that the island of Sicily which by its very nature should be exploited for quite different purposes, is an unsuitable location for storing radioactive waste, in view of the fact that it has already paid a very high price in environmental terms as the location of the largest petrochemical plant in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it does not consider in any event that the island of Sicily which by its very nature should be exploited for quite different purposes, is an unsuitable location for storing radioactive waste, in view of the fact that it has already paid a very high price in environmental terms as the location of the largest petrochemical plant in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would recall to mind that each Member State is responsible for the management of all spent fuel and radioactive waste under its jurisdiction.

Concerning the identification of a radioactive waste repository in Italy, the Commission notes that the Italian Government has entrusted a commission of experts with the task of identifying and assessing potential sites.

The Commission has not been involved in drawing up a specific list of sites for the disposal of radioactive waste in Italy. Therefore, the Commission cannot say what scientific research was carried out in relation to the sites mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to written questions P-3519/03 by Mr Turco (1) and P-3657/03 by Mr Procacci (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 570.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 846.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/127

---

(2004/C 84 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3987/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Galileo

There have been reports in the German media (e.g. the ARD news bulletin of 29 November 2003) that the satellite-supported navigation system Galileo will work on a frequency which can easily be interfered with by the American military at any time. Without consulting Europe, American forces could switch off Europe's Galileo satellite navigation system in the event of crisis or conflict. In addition — according to the reports — the Americans will require the open Galileo signal to be weakened and made qualitatively inferior.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Is this information correct? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is this information correct?

| 2. | If so, what is the Commission's attitude to it, and what measures does it envisage taking? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what is the Commission's attitude to it, and what measures does it envisage taking?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

| 1. | It is not true that non-European authorities will be able to switch off or reduce the quality of transmissions from the Galileo system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is not true that non-European authorities will be able to switch off or reduce the quality of transmissions from the Galileo system.

| 2. | Satellite navigation systems transmit signals which are open to all users (known as the Open Service in the case of Galileo) and secure signals (the Public Regulated Service in the case of Galileo). It is technically possible to scramble all the navigation signals, whatever their frequency, or to scramble only the open signals whilst maintaining access to the secure signals, as they use a different frequency.
  Regarding the performance of the Galileo open signals, discussions are under way with the United States to determine what the most effective standard would be for the open signals of both Galileo and the future GPS III with a view to providing the best service to users. These discussions are intended to ensure full interoperability between the two systems and will, de facto, lead to a global standard for satellite navigation. The willingness of the United States to use the same frequencies as Galileo for open and commercial signals is to be welcomed, as it will give a decisive boost to the European programme being used worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Satellite navigation systems transmit signals which are open to all users (known as the Open Service in the case of Galileo) and secure signals (the Public Regulated Service in the case of Galileo). It is technically possible to scramble all the navigation signals, whatever their frequency, or to scramble only the open signals whilst maintaining access to the secure signals, as they use a different frequency.

Regarding the performance of the Galileo open signals, discussions are under way with the United States to determine what the most effective standard would be for the open signals of both Galileo and the future GPS III with a view to providing the best service to users. These discussions are intended to ensure full interoperability between the two systems and will, de facto, lead to a global standard for satellite navigation. The willingness of the United States to use the same frequencies as Galileo for open and commercial signals is to be welcomed, as it will give a decisive boost to the European programme being used worldwide.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/128

---

(2004/C 84 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3990/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject:   Posting/delivery of tender documents

Is the Commission aware that the system of tendering which it operates, for example in relation to translation work, is discriminating against those tenderers who live and work in a country which has no national registered postal system? Bids submitted to a registered postal system are accepted with reference to the date of their acceptance by the postal system. However, where no such system exists, as in countries like the UK, only the date of actual delivery to the addressee is acceptable. This results in a inequality of treatment and of opportunity for tenderers dependent on whether they have access to a registered mail system or not. Where they do not, the only absolutely safe alternative is personal delivery by the tenderer. Does the Commission have any proposals for measures which might remedy this inequality?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission would like to point out that all public contracts financed in whole or in part by the budget shall comply with the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and nondiscrimination according to Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation (1).

The methods of communication in procurement procedures of the Commission are set out in Article 143 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation.

It offers a choice for the tenderers to submit tenders:

| (a) | by post, for which purposes the invitation to tender documents shall specify that the relevant date is to be the date of dispatch by registered post, as evidenced by the postmark; or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

by post, for which purposes the invitation to tender documents shall specify that the relevant date is to be the date of dispatch by registered post, as evidenced by the postmark; or

| (b) | by hand-delivery to the premises of the institution by the tenderer in person or by an agent, including courier service; for which purposes the invitation to tender documents shall specify, in addition to the information referred to in point (a) of Article 130(2), the department to which tenders are to be delivered against a signed and dated receipt. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by hand-delivery to the premises of the institution by the tenderer in person or by an agent, including courier service; for which purposes the invitation to tender documents shall specify, in addition to the information referred to in point (a) of Article 130(2), the department to which tenders are to be delivered against a signed and dated receipt.

This freedom of choice for the tenderer guarantees the respect of the aforementioned principles. Besides, ‘registered service’ is a part of the universal postal service required by the Postal Services Directive (2) to be available to customers in all Member States.

The Royal Mail, a public limited company wholly owned by the Government, is required by its licence to offer a service which is the equivalent to registered post, described as ‘registered (signed for) delivery’, with proof of posting, available in any Post Office branch in the United Kingdom for delivery in the United Kingdom and abroad.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2)  Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/129

---

(2004/C 84 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4002/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Violation of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) took place from 10 to 12 December 2003 at the Palaexpo in Geneva.

Three of the experts present — Alberto Escudero-Pascual (of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm), Stephane Koch (president of the Internet Society, Geneva) and George Danezis (a Cambridge University researcher) — have complained that the badges issued them on registration for the Summit contained radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) enabling individual delegates' movements within the Palaexpo's different areas to be tracked.

It appears from the three experts' complaints that the use of such chips and the lack of a privacy policy on the part of the WSIS place it in breach of the EU privacy directive, of the UN guidelines on the use of personal files, and of Swiss law on personal data protection.

Was the Commission aware that the badges contained chips of this nature?

Will the Commission seek formal explanations from the organisers of the summit and the Swiss government, and will it call for the full and immediate deletion of the personal data thus illegally collected?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

At the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003, use was reportedly made of RFID technology-based badges to control access to certain restricted areas at the Summit venue.

Although the Commission in principle promotes the use of new, innovative technology such as RFID, any application based on such technology should respect the principles applicable to the processing of personal data of Union citizens transferred from the Union to a third country.

The RFID system seemed to be partly functioning on the basis of the processing of personal data of participants who had registered online, prior to the Summit, from their resident country.

The Commission will seek further information on whether and how RFID-based applications were used in relation to personal data transferred from the Union, in order to assess the legality of the processing under Community law.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/130 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/130

---

(2004/C 84 E/0167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4006/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Residence permits and the difficulty of obtaining them

Is the Commission aware that European Union citizens living in a member state other than their own must register with the authorities and apply for a residence permit and that, moreover, the procedure involved in securing a residence permit is never straightforward?

For example, a British woman living in Melilla, Spain does not have a residence permit. In order for her to secure one, she has to provide details of employment, address and even fingerprints as part of a procedure that has, to date, taken six months.

We are supposed to be encouraging free movement of people within the EU. It seems ridiculous that an EU citizen must, in essence, apply to live in another EU Member State, which makes a mockery of the free movement provisions in the treaties.

Would the Commission raise the issue with the relevant Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Community law on free movement and residence provides that Member States shall grant the right of residence in their territory to EU citizens who intend to reside therein for a period of more than three months, subject to certain conditions. These conditions are, basically, to provide proof that they are employed or self-employed, or else that they are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks and that they dispose of sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden for the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. It is, therefore, legitimate for Member States to require EU citizens to obtain a residence card upon proof that they comply with these conditions.

Community law also provides that the decision to grant residence permits must be taken as soon as possible and no later than six months after application. In the past, the Commission has taken contact with the Spanish authorities on the question of delays to issue or renew residence cards, following individual complaints.

Moreover, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, in accordance with the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (1) on which the Council adopted a common position on 5 December 2003, which has been transmitted to the Parliament, residence cards shall be suppressed for EU nationals. Under this proposal, host Member States may still require the registration of EU nationals but the formalities would be greatly simplified and a registration certificate would have to be issued on the spot. Furthermore, after five years of legal residence in a Member State, EU nationals would acquire a permanent right of residence and apply for a permanent residence certificate.

The Spanish legislation which transposes current Community law on the right of residence of EU nationals (2) has suppressed the obligation to obtain a residence card for EU nationals who are workers, self-employed persons, students or beneficiaries of the right to remain. According to additional information submitted by the Honourable Member, the British complainant he refers to in his written question is an employee of the Spanish Ministry of Education. As such, she is exempted from the obligation of obtaining a residence card but if she, nevertheless, so desires it she may obtain one.

The Commission has been informed by the complainant that she received a five year residence card on 8 January 2004 but they intend to take contact with the Spanish authorities concerning the extended delay incurred for the renewal of her residence card.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 199 final.

(2)  Royal Decree 178/2003 of 14 February on entry and permanence in Spain of nationals of the Member States of the European Union and of other states parties to the agreement on the European Economic Area, (Article 6) Β.Ο.Ε. number 46 of 22 February 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/131

---

(2004/C 84 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4015/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Toxic sites

Can the Commission indicate whether any current European legislation places restrictions on the remediation of toxic sites?

Can the Commission indicate whether any future European legislation will result in a ban (or place restrictions) on the clearing of, and rebuilding on, toxic sites?

If so, will the Commission indicate why it believes that such a ban (or restriction) is necessary?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

At the moment, there is no Community legislation which addresses specifically the remediation of contaminated sites. Nevertheless, some provisions pertaining to the recovery and disposal of contaminated soils can be found in waste legislation and in particular in the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (1). Furthermore, the Commission is currently developing a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use and the Protection of Soil which will address, ‘inter alia’, the contamination of soils. This strategy will include proposals for action in the domain of prevention and remediation of contaminated sites.

In general, measures affecting land use and planning are predominantly a Member State competence and the subsidiarity principle applies. It is unlikely that a comprehensive, standardised, EU-wide approach will be developed, as each land and site is unique and the solutions needed to achieve a sustainable land use have to be customised. However, it is clear that some approaches are unsustainable and these should be discouraged. Through its funding programme the EU is seeking to promote sustainable approaches to dealing with contaminated sites. For example, the Structural Funds Regulations and Guidelines for the period 2000-2006 (2) set out the need for sustainable approaches to the use of urban land, including priority to be given ‘to the rehabilitation of derelict industrial sites (brownfields) over the development of greenfield sites’. The URBAN II initiative supports ‘mixed-use and environmentally-friendly brown-field redevelopment, involving reduced pressures on green-field development and urban sprawl’. Interreg has offered similar opportunities. The future Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment could also include recommendations for the Member States to promote the rehabilitation of brownfield sites which might imply their remediation, if these are found to be contaminated, before their redevelopment.

---

(1)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2)  Commission Communication concerning the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund. Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000 to 2006, OJ C 267, 22.9.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/132 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/132

---

(2004/C 84 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Support for research in Portugal

The Operational Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation is the main source of funding for R&D projects in Portugal, with 50 % of the relevant funds coming from the Community.

However, the Portuguese institutions and centres which depend on the regular receipt of funds for R&D projects approved by the Foundation for Science and Technology are currently experiencing severe problems, as the Community funds concerned have not been transferred. The situation is serious, in view of the very considerable needs of research projects in Portugal.

Can the Commission state:

| 1. | what forms of support for R&D have been earmarked for Portugal under the third Community support framework and the existing Community programmes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what forms of support for R&D have been earmarked for Portugal under the third Community support framework and the existing Community programmes?

| 2. | what delays have occurred in the transfer of funds, and why? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what delays have occurred in the transfer of funds, and why?

| 3. | what measures are being considered to support research projects and the relevant investment in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what measures are being considered to support research projects and the relevant investment in Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

In the context of the Third Community Support Framework (CSF), support for Research and Development (R&D) in Portugal is mainly provided by the Science, Technology, Innovation Operational Programme (POCTI) and, to a lesser extent, by the Information Society Operational Programme (POSI).

Following national and Community audits, which identified certain irregularities in the management of the POCTI programme, the Portuguese authorities have decided to suspend the certification of payments to be presented to the Commission under this programme until appropriate corrective action has been taken.

Given the importance of research in the context of regional development, the Portuguese authorities and the Commission are — in the framework of the mid-term review of the Portuguese Community Support Framework — currently discussing possible modifications aiming at strengthening the innovation aspects of the CSF.

Outside the context of the CSF, R&D can also be financed through the Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes. The funds for the framework Programmes are not allocated by Member State and are subject to competitive tenders.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/133 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/133

---

(2004/C 84 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4026/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Precious Metals Directive

Given the Council of Minister's failure to reach agreement on the Precious Metals Directive during the Italian Presidency, will the European Commission withdraw its proposal on Articles made of precious metal (1)? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Committee of Permanent Representatives on 19 November 2003 did not consider the subject ready for discussion in the Council of Ministers.

As there continue to be divergent views on the proposal for the directive in Council, the Commission will consider its position and duly inform the Honourable Member on its further course of action.

---

(1)  COM(1993)0322, OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, p. 5.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/133 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/133

---

(2004/C 84 E/0171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4028/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   The euro and public opinion

January 2004 will see the second anniversary of the introduction of the euro.

According to the latest Eurobarometer poll, published on 15 December 2003, 59 % of EU citizens and 67 % of citizens of the eurozone countries think the single currency is a good thing. These figures show a fall of 7 and 8 percentage points respectively if compared to those for the first half of 2003.

Does the Commission believe the economic downturn in some of the eurozone Member States could be influencing their citizens' views on the pros and cons of the single currency?

Does the Commission expect this negative trend of public opinion to worsen? What measures does it intend to take on the matter?

Does the Commission believe that Ecofin's decisions of 25 November 2003 concerning the stability pact could affect the euro's credibility?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Eurobarometer figures (Standard Eurobarometer 60 published on 15 December 2003) that the Honourable Member refers to indeed indicate that support for the euro has declined to 67 % in the euro area and 59 % in the EU as a whole. On logical grounds, one would expect that the economic situation in the euro area has an impact on the public perception of the euro and the benefits of monetary union as such. At the same time, many other elements play a role. For example, support for the euro stood at its highest in the period between spring 2002 and spring 2003 (see page 9 of the survey), a period characterised by relatively low growth. A broader analysis over the period 1998-2003, moreover, shows that support for the euro remains traditionally rather stable and fluctuates between 60 % and 75 % both in the euro area and the EU as a whole. It would, therefore, be premature to draw clear conclusions from the declining support registered in autumn 2003.

The survey that the Honourable Member refers to was conducted between 1 October and 7 November 2003. Therefore, the public debate about the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) preceding the decision taken at the Ecofin Council of 25 November 2003 could indeed have influenced the results published on 15 December 2003. The results of the Flash Eurobarometer 153 (also published on 15 December 2003) concerning the SGP, point to a possible link between the debate on the Pact and the perception of the euro, since a clear majority (71 %) of the euro-area citizens agree with the statement that the SGP is a useful instrument and that, thanks to that, the euro is a stable and strong currency.

The Commission continues to believe that sound public finances and fiscal discipline in line with the requirements of the EC Treaty and the SGP are essential. The Commission will, therefore, continue to exercise fully its role in budgetary surveillance in the framework of the SGP. But the 25 November 2003 events also show that it is time to take a further step forward. The Commission is preparing a new initiative to enhance the framework for economic governance in the Union. Improvements in the implementation of the SGP will form part of this initiative.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/134 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/134

---

(2004/C 84 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Euro-dollar exchange rate

The rise of the euro against the dollar is reaching levels which threaten the recent timid resumption of economic growth in the EU. The 6 % fall in German exports registered from September to October 2003 is seen by analysts as a clear consequence of the euro's appreciation.

Some experts think the ECB may be obliged to reduce its rates if the European currency goes on rising. The Commission, in its autumn forecasts, had to scale back its growth forecast for the Community economy, to 0,8 % for 2003 and 2 % for 2004.

Does the Commission believe the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months? Does it believe that a level exists for the euro-dollar exchange rate which would reflect the real bases of both EU and US economies? Are the Commission's most recent economic growth forecasts for the next two years still valid?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission believes that a stable exchange rate is in Europe's interest. The Commission also shares the concerns of the euro-area Finance Ministers and the President of the ECB concerning excessive exchange rate movements (as expressed in the Eurogroup statement of 19 January 2004).

The euro has undergone an appreciation of around 25 per cent against the dollar since the start of 2003. However, the euro-area real effective exchange rate — which is what matters for competitiveness — has only appreciated by around 8 per cent since then (when deflated by nominal unit labour costs). The real effective exchange rate is based on the evolution of the euro against a basket of currencies, weighted according to their importance in the external trade of the euro area. It also takes into account differences in inflation rates.

Both survey data and hard indicators confirm that the Commission services Autumn 2003 forecast is still on track. Indeed, the euro-area real effective exchange rate has only appreciated by around 41⁄2 per cent since the forecast was published. It is also worth noting that the latest available (January 2004) private-sector Consensus forecast for GDP growth in the euro area in 2004 is the same as that given in the Commission Services forecast — 1,8 %.

The Commission does not have an official position concerning whether or not the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months. Similarly, the Commission does not have an official position concerning what exchange rate of the euro against the dollar would best reflect the economic fundamentals of the United States and euro-area economies.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/135

---

(2004/C 84 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4032/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   UK contribution to the EU budget

What is the UK's gross contribution to the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

How much money has the UK received from the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

A table showing:

| — | the United Kingdom's gross contribution (total United Kingdom payments, after deduction of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate) to the Community budget during the period 1973-2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

the United Kingdom's gross contribution (total United Kingdom payments, after deduction of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate) to the Community budget during the period 1973-2002;

| — | total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget during the period 1985-2002; as well as; |
| --- | --- |

—

total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget during the period 1985-2002; as well as;

| — | the amount of the United Kingdom correction relating to each of the years 1985-2002; is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount of the United Kingdom correction relating to each of the years 1985-2002; is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Figures on total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget are only available from 1985, i.e. since the entry into effect of the current United Kingdom correction mechanism.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/135

---

(2004/C 84 E/0174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4033/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Censoring of the word ‘condom’ in the Commission's official press release to mark World Aids Day at the request of Mr Prodi's office

The 11-17 December 2003 edition of the weekly ‘European Voice’ published an article entitled ‘Prodi bans condoms’, according to which the Commission's press service was about to publish an official press release to mark World Aids Day when a telephone call came from Mr Prodi's office with orders to delete the word ‘condom’ from the statement.

In his answer of 10 December 2003 to written question E-3115/03 (1) the Commissioner Christopher Patten said ‘On the basis of research conducted during the last 15 years and partly funded by the Community, it can be claimed that condoms, when used properly, are an effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission, with an efficacy close to 100 %’.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether the report published in the ‘European Voice’ is true; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the report published in the ‘European Voice’ is true;

| — | if so, what prompted President Prodi's office to remove the word ‘condom’ from the press release; |
| --- | --- |

—

if so, what prompted President Prodi's office to remove the word ‘condom’ from the press release;

| — | if Mr Prodi's office does not have access to any scientific findings contradicting those quoted by the Commissioner, on the basis of what political assessment was the word ‘condom’ deleted from the press release? |
| --- | --- |

—

if Mr Prodi's office does not have access to any scientific findings contradicting those quoted by the Commissioner, on the basis of what political assessment was the word ‘condom’ deleted from the press release?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission did not consider it worthwhile to refute the claims of the newspaper mentioned since its position on this question has long been clear.

For example, it would refer to its answer to Written Question E-3115/03 by Mr Turco (2) and to its press release of 20 October 2003 entitled ‘HIV/AIDS: European research provides clear proof that HIV virus cannot pass through condoms’ (3). This document, which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, covers the results of research projects financed by the Directorate-General for Research (RTD) over the last fifteen years. All the available data confirm that condoms are extremely effective in preventing HIV transmission.

---

(1)  See page 50.

(2)  See page 50.

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/rapid/cgi/rapcgi.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1410|0|AGED&lg=EN&display=

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/136 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/136

---

(2004/C 84 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4034/03

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Protecting people and livestock against wolves and bears

Wolves and bears are strictly protected in the EU. However, in some areas of Finland large numbers of these wild animals exist, and they pose a real danger to people, especially children. Livestock/domestic animals are also in danger, as there is no satisfactory method of keeping wild animals away.

Particularly dangerous are wild animals which have become accustomed to being near people. In the Northern Karelia province of Finland, for example, there are herds of wolves whose behaviour has changed. They are not afraid of people but on the contrary seek out prey in the immediate vicinity of human settlements. This year, for instance, wolves have already mauled a dozen cattle, sheep and dogs. In some areas, children do not dare to walk to school, so either parents have to drive them or the municipality has to organise transport to and from school.

Large wild animals are exceptionally numerous in Northern Karelia because the wildernesses in Russian Karelia, beyond Finland's eastern border, are a constant source of new animals, while on the other hand the large lakes prevent them from spreading to the west. In fact, despite this, populations of large wild animals have grown significantly throughout Finland in recent years.

Very few shooting licences are issued for wolves and bears. The issuing of hunting licences is based on average wild animal populations in Finland. No account whatsoever is taken of wild animal populations beyond the Russian border. Accordingly, the police have had to kill a wild animal in the middle of a settlement in the interests of public safety, because the appropriate authorities have not been able to issue the requisite licence.

| 1. | What will the Commission do to make it possible to guarantee the safety of people and their animals in areas where wolves and bears have grown too numerous? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What will the Commission do to make it possible to guarantee the safety of people and their animals in areas where wolves and bears have grown too numerous?

| 2. | How can the number of hunting licences be increased so as to render it commensurate with an area's wild animal population? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How can the number of hunting licences be increased so as to render it commensurate with an area's wild animal population?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Several large carnivores, such as the wolf, brown bear and lynx, are protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), Annex IV(a). These species are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme that requires, among others, that their deliberate killing is prohibited. The Directive does, however, recognize that in certain situations there may exist the need for a derogation to this general rule of strict protection. These justifications, which include ‘inter alia’ public safety and preventing serious damage to livestock, are listed in Article 16 of the Directive. Member States may apply these derogations provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

The number of bears in Finland (830 in 2002) is, according to the authorities, stable rather than expanding. The 2003 hunting quota for bears in Finland was 90 individuals which cannot be considered a small number. The number of wolves is 130 which would still mean that its conservation status is not favourable. When defining the national conservation status of these species, Russian influence has been taken into account and the degree downgraded accordingly: bears from actual ‘Vulnerable’ (vaarantunut) to ‘Near threatened’ (silmälläpidettävä) and wolves similarly from ‘Critically endangered’ (äärimmäisen uhanalainen) to ‘Endangered’ (erittäin uhanalainen).

The Commission is aware that the Finnish authorities, in granting permits to hunt bear, are adjusting the regional quotas according to the population in the areas concerned. With respect to wolves, specific permits are granted for the destruction of individuals that have become problematic for the justifications foreseen in the Directive.

The Commission is, therefore, of the view that the Directive allows for appropriate management of the species to avoid problems of public safety and damage to agricultural interests. In discussions with the Finnish authorities, the Commission has requested that these measures should be structured in the form of a management plan which addresses the conservation management objectives for the species alongside the issue of population control and the approaches that should be taken to promote co-existence between large carnivores and human populations. It is clear that there is much experience of this in Member States. A recent conference on the specific issue of the wolf, ‘Living with the Wolf’ organized by the Commission in collaboration with the Spanish authorities and with participants from all Member States with wolf populations, was the first in a series of actions the Commission is proposing to promote such positive co-operation between Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/137

---

(2004/C 84 E/0176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4036/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Noni products

Two years ago, the German firm Pharmos Naturkosmetik und Heilmittel GmbH was banned from selling capsules filled with pure Noni powder. The competent district authority justified the ban on the grounds that the Novel Food Regulation (NFR) (258/97) (1) applied to Noni products. In the meantime, the application by the American company Morinda to sell Noni products has been granted by the Commission.

| 1. | Why can the authorisation for Morinda's Noni juice not be extended to cover chemically identical Noni products made from the powder of dried Noni fruit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why can the authorisation for Morinda's Noni juice not be extended to cover chemically identical Noni products made from the powder of dried Noni fruit?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of any circumstances in which a dried food product such as dried Noni fruit can damage consumers' health and a chemically identical juice cannot? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of any circumstances in which a dried food product such as dried Noni fruit can damage consumers' health and a chemically identical juice cannot?

| 3. | Following the entry into force of Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) on genetically modified food, the NFR is now unnecessary, having been adopted solely with genetically modified food in mind. What steps is the Commission taking to repeal the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Following the entry into force of Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) on genetically modified food, the NFR is now unnecessary, having been adopted solely with genetically modified food in mind. What steps is the Commission taking to repeal the regulation?

| 4. | A small or medium-sized business cannot afford the cost of an authorisation under the NFR, like the one obtained by Morinda. What steps is the Commission taking to help small and medium-sized businesses and exporting developing countries obtain authorisation for foods made from plants which are classed as ‘novel food’ under the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

A small or medium-sized business cannot afford the cost of an authorisation under the NFR, like the one obtained by Morinda. What steps is the Commission taking to help small and medium-sized businesses and exporting developing countries obtain authorisation for foods made from plants which are classed as ‘novel food’ under the regulation?

| 5. | Why must environmentally certified plant-based foods, used successfully around the world to prevent illness, be subject to harmful testing on animals in Europe even though millions of people are proof of their safety? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Why must environmentally certified plant-based foods, used successfully around the world to prevent illness, be subject to harmful testing on animals in Europe even though millions of people are proof of their safety?

| 6. | When will animal testing be banned for this kind of assessment? |
| --- | --- |

6.

When will animal testing be banned for this kind of assessment?

| 7. | Is the Commission aware that its issuing of an authorisation based on its interpretation of the NFR up to now completely contravenes the EU's legislation on monopolies? Has the Commission committed an offence in creating monopolies of this sort? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is the Commission aware that its issuing of an authorisation based on its interpretation of the NFR up to now completely contravenes the EU's legislation on monopolies? Has the Commission committed an offence in creating monopolies of this sort?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

An important objective of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (3) concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients was to enhance food safety by assuring safety assessment before novel foods and novel food ingredients are placed on the market in the EU. This Regulation was not limited to foods or food ingredients that consist of, contain or are derived from genetically modified organisms. In the meantime, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) on genetically modified food and feed has introduced a specific Community procedure for the authorization of foods which consist of, contain or are produced from genetically modified organisms. Thus, from 18 April 2004, Regulation (EC) No 258/97 will henceforth apply only to novel foods which are not consisting of, containing or being produced from genetically modified organisms.

As there were no ‘Noni-products’ on the market in the Community when Regulation (EC) No 258/97 entered into force (15 May 1997), they require authorisation under the Regulation.

The authorisation (Commission Decision 2003/426/EC) of the juice of Morinda citrifolia was as a novel food ingredient to be used in pasteurised fruit drinks only. Other uses would require a new assessment.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97, safety assessment of novel foods is carried out by Member States' competent bodies and to the appropriate standards. The Commission agrees that, for the purpose of such assessment, the animals testing procedures should be kept to a minimum.

Regulation (EC) No 258/97 provides for a simplified procedure allowing for the placing on the market after a simple notification to the Commission where the product is substantially equivalent to an existent product. This procedure is particularly appropriate for small and medium companies. The Commission has already received and notified to the Member States five such notifications from as many different companies, which are now entitled to place their ‘Noni-juices’ on the market in the EU. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that Regulation (EC) No 258/97 creates monopolies for the benefit of some companies.

The Honourable Member is also invited to refer to the Commission's response to written question P-3594/03 by Mr Kreissl-Dörfler (5).

---

(1)  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(4)  OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

(5)  See page 69.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/139

---

(2004/C 84 E/0177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4037/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Health reform and natural remedies in Germany

As part of its health reforms, Germany has changed the law and made competition between conventional pharmaceutical medicines and natural remedies virtually impossible. Although experts have been working on a positive list of medicinal products including herbal, homeopathic and anthroposophic remedies for years, the German Government's so-called health reform has now removed the possibility of reimbursement for natural medicines through health insurance schemes. Thanks to the health reform, a distortion in competition has emerged that benefits pharmaceutical products. Many patients use natural treatments and remedies, which produce better results in many cases than conventional treatment. These successes should not be brought to an end by market competition between pharmaceutical and natural products favouring the former. As well as the prospect of worse treatment for patients opting for natural medicine, small manufacturers of natural remedies in particular are threatened with bankruptcy.

How does the Commission view this situation from the point of view of competition law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

It is established case law of the European Courts that Community law does not detract from the powers of Member States to organise their social security systems and to adopt, in particular, provisions intended to govern the consumption of pharmaceutical preparations in order to promote the financial stability of their health-care insurance schemes (1). Based on the description given by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have reason to believe that the legal provisions adopted by the German legislator with the object of refusing insured persons the right to be supplied with prescription-free medicinal preparations at the expense of the statutory sickness funds would infringe European competition law.

---

(1)  See for example Judgment of the Court of 7 February 1984 in Case 238/82 Duphar BV and others v. The Netherlands State [1984] European Court Reports 1984 page 523.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/139

---

(2004/C 84 E/0178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Trans-European telecommunications networks

What proportion of rural residents in the EU have broadband internet access, and how does this compare to that in urban areas? What is the projected impact in terms of economic growth of expanding broadband access in rural areas?

What role has the Trans-European telecommunications networks policy played in rolling out broadband internet access in rural areas? How might its role increase in the future, and does the Commission foresee the development and adoption of any other policy initiatives that aim specifically to improve the provision of broadband internet access in rural areas, particularly in the light of its work programme commitment to invest further in networks and knowledge? Does the Commission plan to make use of new technologies such as Galileo in this context?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

At a time when broadband internet connections are experiencing very strong growth in the EU, the increase in the number of subscribers has mainly been in urban areas. While broadband access is available to more than 90 % of the population in urban areas in nearly all 15 Member States via Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), the EU average in rural areas is less than 50 %.

This situation is likely to change rapidly, however. In particular, the exchanges of good practice proposed at EU level (workshop on local and regional broadband initiatives held on 15 December 2003) have shown the growing commitment on the part of local public players to boost the deployment of electronic communications infrastructures in their territory, especially in areas which the market players would not normally enter. The Member States have moreover pledged to propose a national strategy for the development of high-speed by the end of 2003. The Commission will report to the Council and the European Parliament on these national strategies, including recommendations for their implementation in May 2004.

The Commission notes that broadband networks are increasingly considered a factor in the attractiveness of an area. For example, several studies carried out among small and medium-sized businesses show that, in some areas which are so far not served, more than 30 % of businesses plan to move out if no broadband internet access is provided within the next three years (study by the regional telecommunications observatory in France). Information and communications technologies are now regarded as a competitiveness factor which is likely to affect both the maintenance and development of business and employment as well as the capacity to create new services (eGovernment, eHealth, eLearning, eBusiness, etc).

The Growth Initiative for the deployment of trans-European networks adopted in December 2003 devotes one of its quick-start programmes to bridging the digital divide by providing broadband connections in remote and rural areas through the use of different technologies. The revision of the programming documents for the Community Structural Funds (CSF) this year should also boost public investment in the deployment of infrastructure by drawing in particular on the guidelines on the conditions and procedures governing the use of the Structural Funds in the electronic communications sector adopted by the Commission in July 2003 ... The Structural Funds have earmarked over EUR 4,7 billion for the promotion of the information society, including telecommunications infrastructures, for less favoured regions (Objective 1) during the period 2000-2006. An extra EUR 1 billion has been made available for non-Objective 1 regions in the same field during the same period. Moreover, the European Regional Development Fund is co-funding regional programmes of innovative actions with over 70 regional governments focusing on the information society to explore new means for promoting the efficient use of information and communications technologies to boost regional development. In this way, for example, the Andalusian Guadalinfo programme is designed for peripheral rural towns with less than 20 000 inhabitants (1).

The total investment mobilised will be defined in the light of the commitments given by the Member States which have agreed to produce a national strategy for the development of high-speed, on the basis of which the Commission will present a report to the Telecom Council in June 2004. Furthermore, in May 2004 the Commission will be launching a Digital Divide Forum and inviting all players concerned to debate these issues of access and cohesion

All the information and provisions now appear in the Communication ‘Connecting Europe at High Speed: Recent developments in the electronic communications sector’, which the Commission adopted on 3 February 2004.

Although the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system is not chiefly intended for telecommunications applications, it will bring a number of benefits to this sector, in particular by making broadband systems transmission more effective. In addition, Galileo receivers will provide a privileged platform for a series of future applications such as mobile telephones with positioning navigators and receivers (in vehicles, for example), with an emergency call system, for which the number to dial in Europe is 112.

---

(1)  http://www.guadalinfo.net/

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/141 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/141

---

(2004/C 84 E/0179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4061/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Noise from aircraft at Eleftherios Venizelos airport

The noise caused by aircraft landing at and taking off from Eleftherios Venizelos, Athens international airport, is severely disturbing the 400 000 inhabitants of the region.

With one voice, the Municipal Council of Vari — whose views are shared by the Ombudsman — accuses the responsible bodies (the Civil Aviation Service and the Airport Administration) of allowing aircraft to fly over densely populated areas in order to save a trifling amount of time and fuel instead of turning in from the sea, which is 5-10 kilometres further, despite recommendations to the contrary from competent aviation organisations. Moreover, the airport operates throughout the night, often allowing noisy aircraft to fly overhead in breach of Directive 2002/30/EC (1)

What measures can the Commission take to ensure that:

| 1. | the appropriate basic procedures for landing and take-off are selected, the noise produced is reduced and air corridors are mapped out to minimise the disturbance from passing aircraft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the appropriate basic procedures for landing and take-off are selected, the noise produced is reduced and air corridors are mapped out to minimise the disturbance from passing aircraft;

| 2. | on the basis of the ‘polluter-pays-principle’, air traffic control towers operate noise monitoring systems to impose fines on companies using noisy aircraft approaching the airport; |
| --- | --- |

2.

on the basis of the ‘polluter-pays-principle’, air traffic control towers operate noise monitoring systems to impose fines on companies using noisy aircraft approaching the airport;

| 3. | night flights are restricted to the absolutely essential, which is a rule already in force at many major airports in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

3.

night flights are restricted to the absolutely essential, which is a rule already in force at many major airports in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Directive 2002/30/EC (2) contains no provisions on a maximum threshold for noise emissions from overflying aircraft.

Its purpose is to define the conditions and procedures which must be complied with before noise-related operating restrictions can be introduced.

The scope of the Directive is to lay down rules on the withdrawal of the noisiest aircraft of Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and on the introduction of partial operating restrictions which limit the operation of civil subsonic aeroplanes in given time periods.

Although the Directive provides a framework which must be respected when introducing operating restrictions, it is in no way confined to imposing standards for the level of noise emissions from aircraft.

The Commission takes the view that flight paths for landing and take-off need to be established on the basis of the local situation of each airport. Accordingly, and in view of the considerable variety of local situations, it is appropriate for decisions in this field to be taken at local/national level.

Consequently, given the answer to the previous question, it falls to the local/national authorities to specify the optimal number and the location of equipment to monitor the level of noise emissions.

As indicated above, the Member States have the means — in the form of Directive 2002/30/EC — to impose restrictions on the number of night flights, should they so wish, while respecting a minimum number of harmonised rules.

As the situation regarding excessive noise emissions varies from one airport to another, account needs to be taken of the number of people actually affected by the noise and of the results of a cost/benefit analysis to assess the economic and social impact of such a measure.

More generally, European legislation will, in future, allow noise problems around airports to be addressed within a wider framework, under the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (3). According to this Directive, competent authorities in Member States are required to produce noise maps around major airports (4) (no later than 30 June 2007), to inform the public about noise exposure and its effects, and to draw up action plans (no later than 18 July 2008) to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain environmental noise quality where it is good.

---

(1)  OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.

(2)  Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports.

(3)  Directive 2002/49/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of the environmental noise, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

(4)  Civil airports having more than 50 000 movements per year — a movement being a take-off or a landing — excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/142

---

(2004/C 84 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4067/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions

On 18 December 2003 the Commission gave its definitive approval to the cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion. The conditions which the Spanish authorities have to fulfil to receive the funds are: carrying-out of studies to determine an ecological volume for the Júcar before proceeding to the transfer of resources to the Vinalopó, as well as an ecological volume for the coastal wetlands such as the Albufera; guarantees that the waters of the Valencian river will not be mingled with those of the Ebro and that the latter will not be used to offset any deficits attributable to the diversion to Alicante; and compliance with the framework water directive (including full integration of costs when setting the price of water).

On the same day, according to the newspaper ‘Heraldo de Aragón’ (18 December 2003), Mr Pascual Fernández, the Spanish secretary of state responsible for water, said in Saragossa that the only option ruled out was that of ‘using the Júcar-Vinalopó channels to transport water to the Ebro’, and that, in any case, ‘there are many other rivers in the Júcar basin and the document refers only to the Júcar, not the basin’.

The representative of the Spanish Environment Ministry did not specify whether there are plans to divert water to the Júcar when he cited Article 17 of the law on the National Hydrographic Plan, which specifies how the Ebro is to supply each of the recipient basins (for the Júcar basin, 315 cubic hectometres). He added that ‘the distribution of volume within each basin will be decided when the diversion is completed’.

| 1. | What action will the Commission take to ensure that the above-mentioned conditions for granting of the funds are applied in full? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What action will the Commission take to ensure that the above-mentioned conditions for granting of the funds are applied in full?

| 2. | Can the Commission guarantee that the funds will actually be made over only once the Spanish authorities have complied with the conditions both in law and in reañity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission guarantee that the funds will actually be made over only once the Spanish authorities have complied with the conditions both in law and in reañity?

| 3. | What is the Commission's position on the statements by Mr Fernández concerning the possibility of diverting water from the Ebro to the Júcar basin without making use of the Júcar-Vinolopó conduit? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the Commission's position on the statements by Mr Fernández concerning the possibility of diverting water from the Ebro to the Júcar basin without making use of the Júcar-Vinolopó conduit?

| 4. | Will the Commission consider suspending the financing until the Spanish government has clarified its intentions on the matter beyond all reasonable doubt? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission consider suspending the financing until the Spanish government has clarified its intentions on the matter beyond all reasonable doubt?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

In relation to any funding requests related to the Ebro transfer, the Commission will ensure that the relevant rules and procedures for the assessment, award and monitoring of projects are adhered to.

Concerning the relationship between the Ebro transfer and the Jucar-Vinalopo transfer, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's reply to written question P-0019/04, by Mr Ferrandez Lezaun (1).

---

(1)  See page 151.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/143

---

(2004/C 84 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4070/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Conventions, Charter and Constitution: the costs

A great deal of work was done at European level to draft a new treaty entitled ‘Constitution for Europe’. The same can be said for the preparation, prior to that, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is now supposed to form Part II of the Constitution.

With reference to:

| — | the two Conventions, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the two Conventions, and

| — | the public information campaigns carried out all over the European Union, including the publication of both documents, |
| --- | --- |

—

the public information campaigns carried out all over the European Union, including the publication of both documents,

can the Commission say:

| — | whether it can supply comprehensive information broken down by sector, about the costs incurred in the preparation and presentation of the Charter and Constitution and borne by the Community budget in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it can supply comprehensive information broken down by sector, about the costs incurred in the preparation and presentation of the Charter and Constitution and borne by the Community budget in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003;

| — | whether it can provide an analysis of these costs, duly broken down by year and making a distinction between the costs of the direct operation of the two Conventions on the one hand and any other costs incurred by EU bodies on the other, in particular for information or other measures? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it can provide an analysis of these costs, duly broken down by year and making a distinction between the costs of the direct operation of the two Conventions on the one hand and any other costs incurred by EU bodies on the other, in particular for information or other measures?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/144 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/144

---

(2004/C 84 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0074/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   European Convention

Will the Commission please tell me the total cost to the European taxpayer of the European Convention, including staffing costs, travel expenses, translations, stationery, administration, notional cost of office accommodation and any other expenses incurred.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-4070/03 and P-0074/04

given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The expenditure involved in managing the first Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights was essentially made up of interpreting costs for meetings. It was shared between the three institutions associated in drafting the Charter. Accommodation and subsistence expenses for the national representatives were not met by the Community budget.

To finance the Convention which produced the draft Constitution for Europe, a fund was set up by Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council (1).

Parliament, the Council and the Commission also concluded an interinstitutional agreement on the financing of this convention (2).

The Commission noted, when the accounts of the Convention were referred to it in connection with the discharge, that expenditure for 2002 broke down as follows:

| (in euros) |
| --- |
| Travel of members of the Praesidium | 2 180,52 |
| Accommodation and subsistence allowances | 108 100,00 |
| Remuneration | 194 478,22 |
| Mission expenses | 92 806,17 |
| Representation expenses | 30 538,07 |
| Studies, hearings and forum | 41 943,00 |
| Infrastructure and sundries | 24 294,07 |
| Results of adjustments | 6 052,03 |
| Total | 500 392,08 |

(in euros)

Travel of members of the Praesidium

2 180,52

Accommodation and subsistence allowances

108 100,00

Remuneration

194 478,22

Mission expenses

92 806,17

Representation expenses

30 538,07

Studies, hearings and forum

41 943,00

Infrastructure and sundries

24 294,07

Results of adjustments

6 052,03

Total

500 392,08

The Commission would add that as required by paragraph 7 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on the financing of the Convention (3), the representatives of Parliament were periodically informed of the situation with respect to implementation of expenditure by the Convention Secretariat.

In accordance with Article 20 of the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 21 February 2002 (4), the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet were also sent to Parliament, which has to give its assent to the granting of discharge to the Secretary-General of the Convention in respect of the implementation of the budget.

The Honourable Member is informed that more detailed information can be obtained from the General Secretariat of the Council, which provided the secretariat for the two Conventions.

---

(1)  Decision 2002/176/EU of 21 February 2002, OJ L 60, 1.3.2002.

(2)  Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 February 2002, OJ C 54, 1.3.2002.

(3)  OJ C 54, 1.3.2002.

(4)  OJ L 60, 1.3.2002, p. 56.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/145

---

(2004/C 84 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4075/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Contracts of doctors working for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI)

The Commission recently received a complaint from doctors working for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI) about the terms they are obliged to accept in order to work for this organisation. These doctors who are specialists in various fields worked for many years with ‘contracts for the provision of independent services’; after court rulings these have now been converted into ‘contracts for part-time dependent employment for an unlimited duration’. However, according to the conditions of the new contract provided by the DEI, they are not covered by the same DEI arrangements as regular and other staff and are excluded from pay increases due to promotions and from allowances, Christmas bonuses and other benefits provided for in Collective Employment Conditions or by law.

Will the Commission say whether the above terms communicated to the doctors by the DEI in respect of their new employment contract violate the provisions of Directive 97/81 (1) and in particular the principle of non-discrimination which is defined in Clause 4 and which provides that: ‘In respect of employment conditions, part-time workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

The written question deals with the issue of whether the Directive on part-time work (2) is breached by the granting of special contracts without certain additional benefits which are normally given to employees.

Greece has correctly transposed the part-time work Directive by Article 2 of Act No 2369 of 1 September 1998. The Greek legislation applies to the whole private sector and employment relations with public enterprises and other public sector bodies.

The Commission has not received any similar representations as regards violation of the nondiscrimination principle of the part-time work Directive in Greece.

Any alleged breach of the afore-mentioned Greek legislation should in the first instance be addressed to the competent Greek authorities and, in fact, the Commission is aware that the case in question has been brought before the Greek courts.

---

(1)  OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 9.

(2)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, OJ L 14, 20.1.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/145

---

(2004/C 84 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4085/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Practical problems in application of Directive 1999/44/EC

Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees aims to harmonise Member States' rules on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associateci guarantees. Under the Directive, the seller of a product is liable for any lack of conformity in goods that becomes apparent within two years of delivery. The purchaser may invoke certain guarantees, such as repair or replacement of the goods free of charge, an appropriate price reduction or rescission of the contract. According to Article 5(3), if any lack of conformity becomes apparent within six months of delivery, then there is a rebuttable presumption that this existed at the time of delivery, unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

The new rules on guarantees apply to all tangible movable items, which implies that, in theory, they apply equally to flowers, plants and food products, goods that inherently have a limited life span. If a purchaser returns such a product to the seller within six months of purchase (because, for example, the product is not, or is no longer, fresh), the seller must provide proof that the product had in fact been fresh at the time of delivery in order to be exempted from the Directive's obligations on guarantees. Such proof is virtually impossible to provide.

Is the Commission aware of the problems that the application of the Directive may cause in the case of flowers, plants and food products, and has it already received complaints on the subject? Can the Commission state how Member States that have already transposed the Directive into their own national law have dealt with this problem, and whether these products would be covered by the exemption set out in Article 5(3) of the Directive? Does not the Commission feel that, because of the legal uncertainty that this causes, there should be an exemption or a limit on the rules on guarantees regarding such products? If it does, when does the Commission intend to submit appropriate proposals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees covers ‘consumer goods’ as defined in Article l(2)(b). Broadly speaking, these include any tangible movable items. However, some tangible movable items which are not relevant for the present case are excluded from the scope of the Directive. In this sense, the Honourable Member is correct in asserting that tangible movable items with a limited life span such as flowers, plants and food products are covered by the Directive.

The Honourable Member is further correct in stating that according to Article 5(3) any lack of conformity, which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods, shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless proven otherwise. This rebuttable presumption in effect amounts to a shift of the burden of proof in favour of the consumer. This shift is one of the important benefits of the Directive for European consumers. The justification for this shift in burden of proof is that it is much easier for the seller in terms of his knowledge of the goods and of access to information relating to the goods to prove that they were in conformity with the contract. Consumers on the other hand will not always have the necessary expertise or access to the relevant information to prove their claim. However, there is an exemption to the application of this presumption where such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods. This exemption was introduced in order to cover perishable goods such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member. This issue was discussed in the Parliament and the Council during the co-decision procedure. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that there is any legal uncertainty in the case of flowers, plants and food products and has not received any complaints in respect of such goods.

It is currently not possible for the Commission to give a complete picture of the Member States' transpositions because Belgium, France and Luxembourg have still failed to notify transposition measures. A full review of the application of the Directive is due only in 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/147

---

(2004/C 84 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0009/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Protection of Netherlands exports of radar detectors by exempting them from a domestic ban

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that since 1 January 2004 it has been prohibited in the Netherlands to possess, purchase, store or produce radar detectors warning drivers exceeding the speed limit in good time that their speed is being recorded by unmanned cameras or police mobile speed traps? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that since 1 January 2004 it has been prohibited in the Netherlands to possess, purchase, store or produce radar detectors warning drivers exceeding the speed limit in good time that their speed is being recorded by unmanned cameras or police mobile speed traps?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that where it can be shown that the equipment referred to in paragraph 1 is intended for sale in other EU Member States it is exempt from the ban? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that where it can be shown that the equipment referred to in paragraph 1 is intended for sale in other EU Member States it is exempt from the ban?

| 3. | Is it usual for EU Member States to protect the export to other Member States of products banned on the domestic market as undesirable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it usual for EU Member States to protect the export to other Member States of products banned on the domestic market as undesirable?

| 4. | Do other EU Member States that apply speed limits not see the possession and use of radar detectors as a problem? Is legislation banning them in force or in preparation in other EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do other EU Member States that apply speed limits not see the possession and use of radar detectors as a problem? Is legislation banning them in force or in preparation in other EU Member States?

| 5. | Will this problem not arise again soon if the radar detector is followed up by the free downloading of speed traps via the Internet and the use of a GPS locator warning drivers when they are within 500 metres of a speed trap? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Will this problem not arise again soon if the radar detector is followed up by the free downloading of speed traps via the Internet and the use of a GPS locator warning drivers when they are within 500 metres of a speed trap?

| 6. | Is this situation prompting the Commission to discuss with the Member States ways of harmonising the enforcement of speed limits within the EU? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is this situation prompting the Commission to discuss with the Member States ways of harmonising the enforcement of speed limits within the EU?

Source: De Volkskrant, 27.12.2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Netherlands notified the Commission of the draft law prohibiting the possession of certain detectors of radar speed traps. In the Netherlands, and several other Member States, users of such equipment are liable to severe penalties which can include confiscation of the vehicle. The Commission considers that the ban is justified in this case for reasons of road safety. Excessive speed is one of the main causes of road accidents, and is to blame for almost half the fatalities.

According to information available to the Commission, not all Member States have adopted laws prohibiting radar detectors. It is therefore understandable that, in the absence of harmonised rules at Community level, the national legislation of a Member State does not prohibit the manufacture of appliances not intended for use on its territory.

Cases of States prohibiting the use of radar detectors or other products, but not their manufacture, are not isolated. There is nothing to prevent Member States which prohibit the use of such appliances on their territory permitting their manufacture with a view to marketing them in States where their use is permitted.

States which have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the use of radar detectors include Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Finland and Sweden. The penalties for infringements vary widely, however.

New means of countering speed detection equipment appear regularly on the market. Such appliances are often available over the Internet from retailers based in third countries, which can circumvent the national legislation, in particular by recommending that their product be used for a purpose other than avoiding police controls. Nevertheless, speed detectors are also becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the penalties for fraudsters increasingly severe. If a radar detector is discovered, the consequences must be such that they act as a deterrent in the long term.

On 21 October 2003 the Commission adopted Recommendation C(2003) 3861 on enforcement in the field of road safety. Amongst other things, the Recommendation invites the Member States to penalise infringements with effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and also to impose sanctions on acts aimed at hindering or undermining the enforcement of road safety rules. The Commission undertakes to draw up a report on the implementation of the Recommendation every two years and to submit a proposal for a Directive if the measures prove insufficient.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/148

---

(2004/C 84 E/0186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Lower levels of protection against BSE infection in beef from America in the EU compared with Japan, Russia and other countries

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that of the 500 000 tonnes of beef imported into the EU each year 800 tonnes come from the United States and Canada and that these imports are restricted to beef from cattle not contaminated with growth hormones? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that of the 500 000 tonnes of beef imported into the EU each year 800 tonnes come from the United States and Canada and that these imports are restricted to beef from cattle not contaminated with growth hormones?

| 2. | Does the Commission anticipate that imports of US and Canadian beef into the EU will rise sharply once beef is guaranteed hormone-free, or is this unlikely because of price and quality considerations or other factors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission anticipate that imports of US and Canadian beef into the EU will rise sharply once beef is guaranteed hormone-free, or is this unlikely because of price and quality considerations or other factors?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE) in Washington state has prompted Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and other countries to impose a blanket import ban on US beef? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE) in Washington state has prompted Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and other countries to impose a blanket import ban on US beef?

| 4. | Why have the EU's BSE prevention measures been restricted since 1999 to a ban on the import of brains and spinal columns of cattle slaughtered in the United States and why has the EU not yet introduced the more far-reaching measures in force in other countries? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why have the EU's BSE prevention measures been restricted since 1999 to a ban on the import of brains and spinal columns of cattle slaughtered in the United States and why has the EU not yet introduced the more far-reaching measures in force in other countries?

| 5. | Has the EU particular reasons for taking such a conciliatory attitude to the United States on export requirements, for example to allow the resumption of European steel exports to the US? Is it possible that because of economic considerations greater risks are being taken with food safety than would otherwise be the case? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the EU particular reasons for taking such a conciliatory attitude to the United States on export requirements, for example to allow the resumption of European steel exports to the US? Is it possible that because of economic considerations greater risks are being taken with food safety than would otherwise be the case?

| 6. | Under what circumstances and/or on what timescale will the EU import ban be extended in line with the measures taken by those non-EU countries that believe more stringent measures are required? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Under what circumstances and/or on what timescale will the EU import ban be extended in line with the measures taken by those non-EU countries that believe more stringent measures are required?

Source: De Volkskrant, 27.12.2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

| 1. and 2. | According to the Commission's information, in the year 2002, 250 tonnes of beef have been imported from the United States and 350 tonnes from Canada.
  Most of the beef of these countries is produced with the help of growth promoting hormones and can, therefore, not be imported to the Community.
  Import from the United States is, however, allowed according to the Non Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Programme. Under this programme cattle from specifically approved farms/feedlots are delivered to the slaughterhouse with an affidavit from the grower attesting that the animals have not been treated with growth promoting hormones. Animals or meat are segregated at the abattoir and handled in a way that ensures that they are not comingled with other cattle or beef. Moreover, tissue samples are collected at slaughter and analyzed in an agreed laboratory before the United States Government provides export certification for this product.
  Against this background and despite the 11 500 tonnes preferential import quota of high quality beef granted to United States and Canada under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) schedule, the Commission does not expect imports of beef from those two countries to rise sharply in the future. But clearly, this also depends on currency factors and other commercial considerations, which are prone to change. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

According to the Commission's information, in the year 2002, 250 tonnes of beef have been imported from the United States and 350 tonnes from Canada.

Most of the beef of these countries is produced with the help of growth promoting hormones and can, therefore, not be imported to the Community.

Import from the United States is, however, allowed according to the Non Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Programme. Under this programme cattle from specifically approved farms/feedlots are delivered to the slaughterhouse with an affidavit from the grower attesting that the animals have not been treated with growth promoting hormones. Animals or meat are segregated at the abattoir and handled in a way that ensures that they are not comingled with other cattle or beef. Moreover, tissue samples are collected at slaughter and analyzed in an agreed laboratory before the United States Government provides export certification for this product.

Against this background and despite the 11 500 tonnes preferential import quota of high quality beef granted to United States and Canada under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) schedule, the Commission does not expect imports of beef from those two countries to rise sharply in the future. But clearly, this also depends on currency factors and other commercial considerations, which are prone to change.

| 3. | The Commission reacted promptly to the discovery of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case in the United States, and has expeditiously started and maintained a regular information flow with the United States authorities in close co-operation with the Member States' competent authorities. This included awareness of the measures adopted by other trade partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission reacted promptly to the discovery of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case in the United States, and has expeditiously started and maintained a regular information flow with the United States authorities in close co-operation with the Member States' competent authorities. This included awareness of the measures adopted by other trade partners.

| 4. | Since April 2001, the Union has in place a number of protective measures to ensure that bovine material at risk of carrying BSE is not imported from the United States. These measures are a result of a scientific risk assessment procedure, which identified the United States, among many other countries, as a country at risk of BSE outbreak. Such risk assessments have been carried out for a number of major exporters and have been shown to be correct in predicting the existence of BSE in countries that previously had no native cases, i.e. Canada and Japan.
  Currently, the BSE related import conditions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1). The conditions are similar for countries with a BSE risk and those which have already declared a BSE outbreak. Therefore, there is no need for additional sanitary import conditions following the declaration of the first BSE case in United States.
  The import conditions prescribe that imported products shall not contain nor be derived from certain bovine materials considered to present a potential risk of BSE. The list is not limited to brains and spinal columns but includes a variety of other parts of bovine animals.
  These measures follow the principles of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organisation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Since April 2001, the Union has in place a number of protective measures to ensure that bovine material at risk of carrying BSE is not imported from the United States. These measures are a result of a scientific risk assessment procedure, which identified the United States, among many other countries, as a country at risk of BSE outbreak. Such risk assessments have been carried out for a number of major exporters and have been shown to be correct in predicting the existence of BSE in countries that previously had no native cases, i.e. Canada and Japan.

Currently, the BSE related import conditions are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1). The conditions are similar for countries with a BSE risk and those which have already declared a BSE outbreak. Therefore, there is no need for additional sanitary import conditions following the declaration of the first BSE case in United States.

The import conditions prescribe that imported products shall not contain nor be derived from certain bovine materials considered to present a potential risk of BSE. The list is not limited to brains and spinal columns but includes a variety of other parts of bovine animals.

These measures follow the principles of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organisation;

| 5. | The BSE related import conditions applied to the United States are identical to import conditions applied to other third countries with BSE cases or a BSE risk. Third countries in which the BSE risk is considered negligible according to a scientific assessment are exempted from those import conditions. Collateral trade issues do not play a role in influencing the measures concerning consumer safety, public and/or animal health. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The BSE related import conditions applied to the United States are identical to import conditions applied to other third countries with BSE cases or a BSE risk. Third countries in which the BSE risk is considered negligible according to a scientific assessment are exempted from those import conditions. Collateral trade issues do not play a role in influencing the measures concerning consumer safety, public and/or animal health.

| 6. | The Commission is monitoring regularly the situation in North America as in any other part of the world with respect to BSE and will take timely protective measures if and when warranted. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission is monitoring regularly the situation in North America as in any other part of the world with respect to BSE and will take timely protective measures if and when warranted.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/150

---

(2004/C 84 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Adaptation of Council Directive 92/58/EEC on minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work

Council Directive 92/58 EEC (1) lays down minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work. However, the specifications for signs laid down in the directive are now out of date. Member States have since introduced a range of new signs, as a result of which signs are no longer uniform and standards have deteriorated as a result.

Article 9 of the directive says that the annexes laying down specific specifications for signs should be adapted in the light of technical progress.

| 1. | Does the Commission share the view that the directive on signs need to be adapted for the above reasons? If so, does it intend to submit appropriate proposals? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission share the view that the directive on signs need to be adapted for the above reasons? If so, does it intend to submit appropriate proposals? If not, why not?

| 2. | Is it not urgent to adapt the directive given that ten new Member States are about to join the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it not urgent to adapt the directive given that ten new Member States are about to join the EU?

| 3. | Is the Commission not concerned that the aim of the directive might be undermined by lack of ‘maintenance’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission not concerned that the aim of the directive might be undermined by lack of ‘maintenance’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission has always attached great importance to updating and adapting, in line with technical progress, the provisions of directives on the protection of the health and safety of workers at work and, in particular, Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work (2).
  The question concerning the need to adapt Directive 92/58/EEC has therefore been put to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3).
  At its 61st plenary meeting on 19 December 2000, the Commission asked the Advisory Committee to state its opinion on the difficulties experienced by the various Member States in implementing Directive 92/58/EEC and on the possible need to amend it.
  While highlighting the need for more systematic collection of data on problems concerning the legibility and/or comprehension of signs, the Committee did not consider a revision of Directive 92/58/EEC to be a priority. In this opinion, despite the acknowledgement of problems related to comprehension of the signal for evacuation in the event of fires or other accidents, the three interest groups (government, employers and workers) felt that there was indeed no urgent need to amend the Directive but that more work should be done on collecting information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has always attached great importance to updating and adapting, in line with technical progress, the provisions of directives on the protection of the health and safety of workers at work and, in particular, Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work (2).

The question concerning the need to adapt Directive 92/58/EEC has therefore been put to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3).

At its 61st plenary meeting on 19 December 2000, the Commission asked the Advisory Committee to state its opinion on the difficulties experienced by the various Member States in implementing Directive 92/58/EEC and on the possible need to amend it.

While highlighting the need for more systematic collection of data on problems concerning the legibility and/or comprehension of signs, the Committee did not consider a revision of Directive 92/58/EEC to be a priority. In this opinion, despite the acknowledgement of problems related to comprehension of the signal for evacuation in the event of fires or other accidents, the three interest groups (government, employers and workers) felt that there was indeed no urgent need to amend the Directive but that more work should be done on collecting information.

| 2. | No. The ten new Member States must transpose and implement the existing Directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

No. The ten new Member States must transpose and implement the existing Directive.

| 3. | The Commission feels that the aim of the Directive is still met, namely to provide workers with more information on the health and safety risks to which they are exposed, independently of the linguistic and cultural differences between workers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission feels that the aim of the Directive is still met, namely to provide workers with more information on the health and safety risks to which they are exposed, independently of the linguistic and cultural differences between workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.

(3)  Council Decision of 27 June 1974, OJ L 185, 9.7.1974, p. 15, repealed by Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work, OJ C 218, 13.9.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/151

---

(2004/C 84 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0019/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Júcar-Vinalopó project

On 16 December 2003, Commissioners Barnier and Wallström informed Parliament of the approval of the Júcar-Vinalopó hydrographic project, subject to it being totally independent of the diversion of the Ebro and compliant with the framework water directive.

On 18 December, at a press conference, Mr Pascual Fernández, the Spanish secretary of state responsible for water, said in reply to a question that the only option ruled out was that of ‘using the Júcar-Vinalopó channels to transport water to the Ebro’, and that, in any case, ‘there are many other rivers in the Júcar basin and the document refers only to the Júcar, not the basin’.

What is the Commission's position on these statements by the Spanish government? Can it confirm that diversions of water from the Ebro basin to the Júcar basin could be financed using Community funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission has re-checked the position with the Spanish authorities and can confirm that there will be no transfer of water from the River Ebro into the catchment/river basin of the river Jucar. However, the Jucar river basin district which contains many rivers in addition to the river Jucar, is still scheduled to receive water from the proposed Ebro transfer. The confusion on this issue arises from the mixing up, on the one hand, of the term ‘the Jucar catchment/river basin’ which covers the river Jucar and its tributaries and, on the other hand, the ‘Jucar river basin district’ which is an aggregation of river basins which have been grouped together for administrative reasons.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/151

---

(2004/C 84 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0020/04

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Bridge over the Straits of Messina

In an interview that appeared in Il sole 24 ore on 17 December 2003 the Italian Minister for Infrastructure Pietro Lunardi revealed that European Commissioner Loyola de Palacio had said that the Commission was prepared to fund the construction of a bridge over the Straits of Messina.

If this report is correct, is the European Commission sure that such a bridge would satisfy all the necessary requirements to be eligible for Community funding?

In particular, does the Commission not think that it would be more viable, not least in economic and environmental terms, to support an alternative solution to a bridge over the Straits such as a marine highway linking Sicily with the mainland?

Does the European Commission not consider that, contrary to the statements made by the Berlusconi government, this project is too costly to attract private investors and would ultimately impose a severe burden on the Italian treasury?

Does the Commission not consider that Straits of Messina bridge should be seen as a private project of trans-European interest as defined by the relevant Commission proposal and the Van Miert report?

Finally, has the Commission received the requisite guarantees from the Italian government as to the environmental sustainability of the project?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Messina Strait Bridge project is among the 29 priority projects identified in the Commission's proposal to revise the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (1). The inclusion of this project in the priority list, as part of project No 1 ‘the Mixed Rail axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo’, follows the recommendation of the High Level Group chaired by Mr Van Miert. However, implementation of the project is under Italian responsibility.

Under the 2000-2006 Structural Fund programming, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is due to co-finance the Rome-Naples-Salerno high-speed rail link, the technological modernisation of the Salerno-Reggio Calabria and Messina-Palermo links and the doubling of the track between Messina and Palermo. As yet, the Italian authorities have not requested any financing to build the high-speed line on the Salerno-Reggio Calabria and Messina-Palermo links.

Motorways of the Sea are a new concept designed to support the development of trans-national maritime links between Member States. In that sense, they cannot be seen as an alternative to the Messina Strait Bridge, which may provide the infrastructure for further distribution of rail and road flows between Italy and Sicily.

Private funding could provide a partial answer to the project's financial requirements. However, the Commission is not yet in a position to assess the level of public funding required.

The Commission would underline that the Messina Strait bridge represents not a private initiative but an important connection between the mainland and the largest and most populated island in the Mediterranean.

Once the Commission's proposal has been approved by the Council and Parliament, any request from the Italian Government concerning funding for the construction of the Messina Strait bridge from the trans-European transport network budget will require an in-depth appraisal by the Commission, particularly with regard to the environmental protection provisions of Article 8 of the TEN-T Guidelines and other criteria, such as economic viability, specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 (2) on the granting of financial aid to the TENs.

The project for a bridge over the Strait of Messina is covered by the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (3) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4). In addition, an appropriate assessment from the point of view of nature conservation will also have to be carried out, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (5). This assessment can be performed within the framework of the environmental impact assessment mentioned above or as a separate assessment.

The Commission has registered a complaint on the application of the abovementioned Directives to this specific project, which will be examined carefully to ensure that the relevant Community law has been observed.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564.

(2)  OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(5)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/153

---

(2004/C 84 E/0190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Urgent adoption of a directive on aircraft safety imposing stringent and uniform checks

A proposal for a directive requiring all Member States to report the results of national inspections carried out on defective aircraft has been in existence since 1997; the proposal also provides for mandatory inspections even in the case of the slightest suspicion in terms of aircraft safety but it has still not been adopted.

Why has this directive not been adopted?

Does the Commission not consider that it should require checks in all Member States to satisfy the same standards of thoroughness and stringency?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The European Parliament and Council directive on the safety of third countries' aircraft using Community airports will be adopted shortly.

The Commission's initial proposal of 1997 could not be adopted within the timeframe laid down by the EC Treaty on account of divergences within the Council. Once these problems were overcome, the Commission presented a new proposal in January 2002. It is on the basis of this text that the abovementioned directive will be adopted.

The directive makes provision ‘inter alia’ for measures to be taken to adapt inspection procedures, thus enabling the quality of inspections to be ensured.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/153

---

(2004/C 84 E/0191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0038/04

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Illegal imports of dolphins

In 2001 the Portuguese Government, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1) on CITES, banned imports of dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) caught in their natural environment. Spain is currently the only country which allows dolphins to be imported (from Cuba), and once they have been brought into Spain they can be freely moved around the rest of the European Union. Lisbon Zoo has applied to the Portuguese authorities for permits in order to enable it to purchase dolphins from the Oceanográfico in Valencia — dolphins which are brought in from Cuba and which may not be imported directly into Portugal.

When are the EU Member States going to implement coordinated policies in this area, in order to prevent Spain from becoming the gateway to Europe for species which may not be traded in the other EU countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission does not accept that there is a lack of co-ordination with regard to wildlife trade policies or that Spain is a gateway for species rejected by other Member States. The provisions in place in Spain are no less strict than in any of the other Member States. With regard to trade in endangered species of flora and fauna, all Member States are bound by the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1997, on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2). This Regulation is intended to ensure a common implementation of CITES among the Member States and the perceived lapse in this case is not due to any flaw in its provisions.

Bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are listed on Annex A of the Regulation. This means that import of wild dolphins is allowed only if the purpose is primarily non-commercial — breeding, education or research, for example. Even then, it must be established that the import will not have a detrimental effect on the conservation status of the species and — in the case of live animals — that the intended accommodation is adequate. Movement of the animal to another Member State is only allowed when the latter Member State has also verified that the intended use is non-commercial and that the accommodation is adequate.

In this case, if Portugal rejected the import application on the grounds that the intended use was commercial or that the intended accommodation for the specimen was inadequate, then these considerations still apply if the animal is transferred from Spain. If Portugal had wished to prevent the transfer on these grounds, this lay within its powers under the system.

Where a Member State prohibits an import on the grounds that it will have a detrimental conservation effect, they are obliged to inform the Commission who, in turn, brings the decision to the attention of the Scientific Review Group convened under Article 17 of the Regulation where this decision is either confirmed or reversed on the basis of the collective expert opinion of the Member States. In the present case, the Commission was not informed of any decision by Portugal to reject an import application for bottle-nosed dolphins from Cuba on these grounds. As a result, Spain was left free to make its own judgement on this issue.

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

(2)  As last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1497/2003 of 18 August 2003, OJ L 215, 27.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/154

---

(2004/C 84 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Structural Fund decommitments in Scotland

Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2263/03 (1) with regard to structural funding, in which it was stated that the Commission would be in a position to determine the potential amounts of decommitment from the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme under the ‘N+2’ rule after 31 December 2003, can the Commission now provide such information?

Furthermore, is the Commission yet able to provide information on any decommitments resulting from the Structural Funds programmes in Scotland for the period 1994-1999?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) provides for the Commission to decommit any part of the commitment of the year ‘n’ that has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment application at the end of the year ‘n+2’.

For the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme by the end of 2002 all the Structural Funds met the N+2 rule with the exception of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) whose payments on account or acceptable payment applications submitted for assistance were lower than the amounts committed in 2000. The unused part of that commitment was, therefore, to be decommitted.

The Commission, having consulted the United Kingdom authorities, has determined that the sum in question in relation to the EAGGF is from the 2000 commitment EUR 2 026 960,77.

The financial tables of the Single Programming Document were amended accordingly by Decision C (2003) 5280 of 19 December 2003 to take into account such a decommitment of EAGGF assistance.

Concerning 2001 commitments of the Highlands and Islands Special Transitional Programme, no decom-mitment for any of the Structural Funds under the ‘N+2’ rule is foreseen.

With regard to the programming period 1994-1999, the Commission wrote to the Scottish authorities on 22 August 2003 and 24 October 2003 to propose the decommitment of a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) amount of EUR 82 882 223,64 corresponding to the unused part of the appropriations allocated to Scottish programmes, following provisional calculations on the basis of final payment claims submitted. The Scottish authorities have agreed that this is the correct figure. The above amount has been decommitted.

The breakdown of programmes affected by these decommitments is as follows:

| (in euros) |
| --- |
| ERDF No | Title | Decommitment |
| 970913004 | DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2 97-99 | 34 131 448,00 |
| 970913003 | DOCUP EASTERN SCOTLAND OBJ2 97-99 | 16 742 618,00 |
| 940913009 | GRAMPIAN (OBJ5B) | 206 849,00 |
| 940913018 | DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2 | 31 801 308,64 |
| Total | 82 882 223,64 |

(in euros)

ERDF No

Title

Decommitment

970913004

DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2 97-99

34 131 448,00

970913003

DOCUP EASTERN SCOTLAND OBJ2 97-99

16 742 618,00

940913009

GRAMPIAN (OBJ5B)

206 849,00

940913018

DOCUP WESTERN SCOTLAND STRATHCLYDE OBJ2

31 801 308,64

Total

82 882 223,64

Moreover, in addition to the above amount, EUR 1 040 915,25 of ERDF assistance has been decommitted for the 1994-1996 Eastern Scotland Objective 2 Programme upon closure.

Regarding the other Scottish programmes, no further programme has been closed since the Commission replied to the Honourable Member's written question P-2263/03. Therefore, only when all the documents are assessed — including the audit control statements — and the closure process is completed, will the Commission be in a position to determine the total amounts allocated to Scotland to be decommited.

Such closure would, however, be without prejudice to any later decisions that might arise cancelling or reducing assistance and ordering the reimbursement of monies wrongfully paid out. Such decisions may be necessary pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 4253/1988 (3), as amended, or due to infringement procedures opened pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, State Aid procedures and corrections which may prove necessary following the findings of future audits of the expenditure declared.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 240.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1105/2003 of 26 May 2003, OJ L 158, 27.6.2003.

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/156

---

(2004/C 84 E/0193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/04

by Giorgio Calò (ELDR) and Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany

On the basis of the internal rules of the Max Planck Society in Germany foreign research students, unlike their German fellow students, do not have access to the regular employment contract BAT IIa/2, but receive a grant (‘Stipendium’), which is tax-free and not subject to social security contributions.

This discrimination affects hundreds of foreign students, most of them from Community countries, and naturally has substantial repercussions on guarantees and rights in the areas of social security and health.

The Max Planck Society, 80 % of whose funding comes from public sources, is bound by the principles of the Constitution and the founding principles of the Treaty concerning non-discrimination, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of establishment and equal opportunities.

In view of the blatant violation of these principles, can the Commission intervene by adopting urgent measures to ensure that the aforementioned discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany is discontinued?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

EU nationals have the right to work in other Member States (Article 39 of the EC Treaty). This right to free movement of workers includes the right to have equal access to jobs and equal treatment in relation to working conditions as compared to the nationals of the host Member State.

On the basis of Article 39 nationals of other Member States must, therefore, be allowed to apply for research positions for which an employment contract is offered (like the positions under BAT IIa/2 as concerned in the written question) at the German Max Planck Society in the same way as German nationals.

According to the information of the Commission, nationals of other Member States are equally entitled to apply for research posts (e.g. Doktorandenstellen). In the job-offers for Doktorandenstellen currently put online at the homepage of the Max Planck Society (23 January 2004) no nationality condition is stipulated.

In order to be able to further evaluate if the facts contained in the written question might constitute a breach of Community law, the Honourable Members are therefore invited to send more information to the Commission (Directorate-General Employment and Social Affairs), including information about the cases of the non-German EU nationals who were refused application for such a Doktorandenstelle on the basis of their nationality or who have obtained such a post but without the working conditions as foreseen for BAT IIa/2 employees.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/157

---

(2004/C 84 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0070/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Chrome-plating factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez

Following my Question E-2437/03 (1) of 11 July 2003 and the reply of 23 September 2003, concerning the possible building of a polluting factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez, Portugal, a statement by the Association for the defence of the Valdevez Natural Environment says that there is a risk of the Serraliber chrome-plating factory briefly starting chrome-plating operations in January 2004.

There is a revocation case before the courts (No C/000830/03) for failure to comply with the provisions of Decree Law No No 69/2000 of 3 May since the factory was built before the environmental impact assessment had been concluded.

What action has been taken since the Commission replied to me in September 2003?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Following its answer of 23 September 2003 to question E-2437/03 (1) by the Honourable Member on the same subject, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Portuguese authorities have since replied to the letter it sent requesting further information on the construction of the proposed factory.

The Commission is currently examining the Portuguese authorities' reply. The situation will then be examined at a meeting between the Portuguese authorities and the Commission with a view to adopting a position on the complaints in question.

At that meeting, the Commission will not fail to question the Portuguese authorities regarding the impact assessment carried out on the project, and in particular the situation reported by the Honourable Member in her question.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/157

---

(2004/C 84 E/0195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0075/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Flight safety checks

The European Union — via the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council — has in various ways urged the individual countries to introduce effective flight safety controls. Safety is extremely important, and not just in view of the recent tragic accident. Does the Commission not consider it would be useful to obtain information from the individual countries concerning the checks carried out on the condition of aircraft and the results produced? Have checks been carried out on individual carriers and how many and what kind of checks were carried out without prior notice in the various countries on both scheduled flights and ‘charter’ flights? Has the crucial issue — which is not always spelled out — of the relationship between low fares and expenditure on flight administration and routine and special aircraft maintenance been tackled in every country?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Member States inspect foreign aircraft which land on their territory and take part in a coordination programme established by the European Civil Aviation Conference: the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) programme. These checks and the SAFA programme were much discussed in the press following the Flash Airlines Boeing 737 accident at Sharm el Sheikh on 3 January 2004; the checking of this aircraft highlighted the programme's limitations.

The proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries' aircraft using Community airports (1) should make it possible to overcome the deficiencies in the SAFA programme, in particular by making checks mandatory by providing scope for Community action vis-à-vis undertakings or countries which fail to comply with safety requirements, and by publishing an annual report on inspections. Once this Directive is applied by the Member States, the Commission will have detailed information on all the inspections carried out at Community airports.

The Commission currently has the following data: in 2002, European States participating in the SAFA programme carried out 3 234 checks on aircraft operated by 529 airlines from 127 countries.

The Commission notes that the certification of airlines and the certification of each individual aircraft is done by the national civil aviation authority of the country in which the airline is established or in which the aircraft is registered, in accordance with the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The responsibility of ensuring that international safety standards are being adhered to rests with the national authority, regardless of the relationship between fares, costs and aircraft maintenance. All undertakings must submit to inspections by the competent authorities. The national registration authorities undergo ICAO audits.

---

(1)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/158

---

(2004/C 84 E/0196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Schengen Information System and missing persons

In its reply to my written question No E-3222/03 (1), the Commission says that as regards the recommendation made at the European Conference on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings held in Brussels in September 2002, that a feasibility study be conducted on the establishment of a European database for missing persons, a recommendation reiterated by the European Parliament in its resolution on the Daphne II programme (P5_TA(2003)0366- A5-0280/2003), the possibility of searching for missing people and children in particular already exists under the Schengen Information System (SIS) and that this possibility will be maintained with the development of the second generation of the SIS.

Could the Commission indicate which Member States utilise this facility and outline what conclusions have been reached as regards its effectiveness?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

Article 97 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (2) (here after referred to as ‘the Convention’) stipulates: ‘Data on missing persons or persons who, for their own protection or in order to prevent threats, need temporarily to be placed under police protection at the request of the competent authority or the competent judicial authority of the Party issuing the alert shall be entered, so that the police authorities may communicate their whereabouts to the Party issuing the alert or may move the persons to a safe place in order to prevent them from continuing their journey, if so authorised by national law. This shall apply in particular to minors and persons who must be interned following a decision by a competent authority. The communication of data on a missing person who is of age shall be subject to the person's consent.’

According to Article 101 of the Convention, access to these data shall be reserved exclusively to the authorities responsible for border checks and for other police and customs checks carried out within the country, as well as to the authorities responsible for the coordination of such checks.

Since the Parties of the Convention are responsible for the management of the Schengen Information System (SIS), they are in a position to draw conclusions as regards its effectiveness. However, the Commission was informed that about 33 000 persons were reported in the SIS further to Article 97 of the Convention by the end of 2003. About 50 % percent of these persons were minors. The possibility of circulating data on missing persons under Article 97 was used by all Schengen States, but especially by Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal.

The Council addressed the issue of a European database for missing persons in its conclusions of 8 May 2003 in the Brussels Declaration on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (3) taking into consideration the development of the SIS II. The Commission can confirm that the SIS II will be able to include data on missing persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 493.

(2)  OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(3)  OJ C 137, 12.6.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/159

---

(2004/C 84 E/0197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Clinical Trials Directive

Further to the Commission's response to E-3209/03 and E-3215/03 (1) on implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC (2), what views were presented by the Irish Government representatives at the 15 May 2003 pharmaceutical committee meeting? What progress has been made in the preparation of the implementation guidelines for this Directive in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is currently working together with the Member States in the preparation of the implementing guidelines of this Directive. In this context, the Irish competent authority informed the Commission that specific guidance for the application of clinical trials will be developed and published soon.

The Commission discussed a first draft of the implementing guidelines with the Member States during the Standing Committee meeting held on 23 July 2003. No agreement could be reached during that meeting. The new draft for the implementing guidelines is still under discussion within the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/160 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/160

---

(2004/C 84 E/0198)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0084/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Ban on shipping of oil in single-hull tankers and the use of ‘flags of convenience’

Given that ships flying ‘flags of convenience’ cause loss of life and damage to the marine environment every year and given the intention, expressed in Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (2) on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers, to ban the transport to or from the ports of the Member States of heavy grades of oil in single-hull oil tankers;

can the Commission advise on:

| — | the measures that have been put in place to restrict, regulate or eradicate the practice of ships flying ‘flags of convenience’ and to bring their owners to account? |
| --- | --- |

—

the measures that have been put in place to restrict, regulate or eradicate the practice of ships flying ‘flags of convenience’ and to bring their owners to account?

| — | when a full ban on single hull tankers carrying oil in European coastal waters is likely to be put in place and what steps have been taken in this direction so far? |
| --- | --- |

—

when a full ban on single hull tankers carrying oil in European coastal waters is likely to be put in place and what steps have been taken in this direction so far?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The adoption of the ‘Erika ľ and “Erika II” packages and the progress made with the measures proposed in response to the “Prestige” accident have been key steps in the introduction of effective rules to enhance maritime safety and tackle the problem of flags of convenience. Thanks to these measures, there should be no more room in European waters for substandard ships and rustbuckets.

At international level, the Commission has constantly pushed for and supported efforts by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to establish a flag State code and a compulsory model audit scheme to ensure that flag States fulfil their obligations under international conventions. The determination shown by the Commission and the Member States enabled the IMO to make substantial progress with the framework and implementing arrangements for the compulsory model audit scheme in November 2003.

The Union's arrangements for applying the IMO audit scheme to flag States will be examined as part of the new maritime safety measures the Commission recently announced to Parliament (“Erika III” package).

Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 entered into force on 21 October 2003. Since that date, single-hull oil tankers carrying heavy oil have been banned from ports and waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States. The Regulation also provides for vessels of this type to be banned outright by 2015 under an accelerated withdrawal schedule.

However, the Regulation does not apply to single-hull oil tankers which pass close to the Union's coasts without entering areas under the Member States’ jurisdiction. At the request of the Commission and the Member States, in December 2003 the IMO amended the Marpol Convention, introducing at international level the double-hull requirements imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003. IMO procedures mean that the new rules on double hulls will not enter into force until April 2005.

Together with the Union's neighbours, notably the Russian Federation and the Mediterranean countries, the Commission is looking at bringing the new IMO rules into force earlier in order to deal immediately with the risks posed by single-hull oil tankers sailing close to Europe's coasts.

---

(1)  OJ L 249, 1.10.2003, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/161

---

(2004/C 84 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Excessively high premiums charged by Dutch medical insurance companies to policyholders in neighbouring States to offset deficits in the United States

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that Dutch medical insurance companies are charging higher and higher premiums to their private policyholders living outside the Netherlands, for example the insurance company VGZ, which on 1 January 2004 introduced a monthly ‘foreign fee’ of EUR 35 additional per adult and EUR 17,50 per child? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that Dutch medical insurance companies are charging higher and higher premiums to their private policyholders living outside the Netherlands, for example the insurance company VGZ, which on 1 January 2004 introduced a monthly ‘foreign fee’ of EUR 35 additional per adult and EUR 17,50 per child?

| 2. | Is it aware also that in the case of this foreign fee no distinction is made between policyholders living near the Dutch border, those living in other EU Member States and those living outside the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it aware also that in the case of this foreign fee no distinction is made between policyholders living near the Dutch border, those living in other EU Member States and those living outside the European Union?

| 3. | What is the Commission's opinion of the fact that this system means that Netherlands nationals living in Belgium, where medical charges are comparable with those in the Netherlands, are forced to contribute to the expenses of Netherlands policyholders resident in the United States, where medical charges are five times higher than in the Netherlands or Belgium? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the Commission's opinion of the fact that this system means that Netherlands nationals living in Belgium, where medical charges are comparable with those in the Netherlands, are forced to contribute to the expenses of Netherlands policyholders resident in the United States, where medical charges are five times higher than in the Netherlands or Belgium?

| 4. | Are medical insurance companies allowed to make additional charges such as these in the European Union and to differentiate between national and foreign policyholders with a view to covering costs incurred outside the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are medical insurance companies allowed to make additional charges such as these in the European Union and to differentiate between national and foreign policyholders with a view to covering costs incurred outside the European Union?

| 5. | If it has answered the fourth question in the affirmative, does the Commission intend to change this situation by laying down that the level of premiums charged by medical insurance companies within the EU should in principle be the same and that supplementary charges are only permitted if demonstrably significant factors make medical expenses higher in the EU Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If it has answered the fourth question in the affirmative, does the Commission intend to change this situation by laying down that the level of premiums charged by medical insurance companies within the EU should in principle be the same and that supplementary charges are only permitted if demonstrably significant factors make medical expenses higher in the EU Member State in question?

Source: The Dutch newspaper BN-De Stem of 7 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the legislation adopted by the European Union in the insurance sector with the aim of establishing the internal market has put in place a regime based on the freedom to set terms and tariffs. In Case C-59/01 Commission v. Italy (1), the Court of Justice ruled that the principle of freedom to set rates applies in the non-life insurance sector. It held that this principle applies in areas such as compulsory insurance, e.g. insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. Moreover, it stipulated that the public interest cannot be invoked for the purpose of hindering the freedom to set rates.

Regarding the increases in rates that some Dutch insurance companies are charging policyholders living outside the Netherlands, the insurance premium should be commensurate with the risk for which cover is sought. It may be that Dutch insurance companies with policyholders living abroad consider this to be a factor which increases the risk insured since the medical costs covered by the insurance policy would be higher than in the Netherlands. In fact, management and administrative costs relating to insurance policies for policyholders living abroad are generally higher than for domestic policyholders. Various factors, such as agreements between health insurers, healthcare establishments and the medical profession in the Netherlands, explain this difference in the costs incurred abroad by insurers. These agreements allow Dutch insurers to keep the costs for policies covering risks located in the Netherlands at a level which enables them to offer lower insurance premiums than they could offer for policies covering risks abroad, where similar agreements with the medical profession do not exist. In other words, it would seem acceptable for rates to continue to differ in so far as they are based on objective considerations.

In so far as health costs vary between Member States, insurance premiums should take this into account in such a way as to adequately reflect the situation to be covered by the insurance policy. In addition, it must be pointed out that, although the insurance premium may be higher if the policyholder does not live in the Netherlands, he or she does not have to pay additional charges that account for a significant proportion of the total price (premium and taxes). Such charges are levied on insurance policies for policyholders living in the Netherlands.

As the Commission is not competent to supervise insurance companies, it is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member whether this increase in rates for policyholders living abroad is intended exclusively to compensate for the healthcare costs incurred by policyholders living in the United States. The authorities in the Member States responsible for insurance supervision will be able to indicate whether these increases in rates are intended to make all policyholders living abroad bear the costs relating to policyholders living in the United States.

The Commission cannot intervene to demand that health insurance premiums should be the same amount within the European Union and that rate increases should be permitted only when the circumstances in the Member State concerned lead to a substantial rise in healthcare costs.

---

(1)  ECR I- ...

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/162

---

(2004/C 84 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0098/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Extradition of Sok Yoeun

On 28 November 2003, following proceedings that failed to comply with international standards, a Thai appeal court ruled that 72-year-old Sok Yoeun must be extradited to Cambodia after a period of no fewer than 15 days, but no more than three months. Sok Yoeun's extradition was sought by those circles wishing to show the existence of a plot to assassinate Hun Sen, in which Sam Rainsy, the Cambodian opposition leader, is said to be involved.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights granted Mr Yoeun refugee status and the Finnish authorities announced that they were prepared to grant him political asylum. The Thai judiciary's decision is extremely worrying in that it openly violates international law by setting a dangerous precedent for anyone living under UNHCR protection in Thailand. The decision also serves to endorse the blatant political machinations of Hun Sen's party, and therefore to destabilise Cambodia.

Is the Commission aware of the latest developments in Sok Yoeun's situation? If so, has it reacted officially and in what way? What steps has it taken or does it intend to take, possibly together with the Finnish authorities, to prevent Mr Yoeun's extradition from Thailand to Phnom Penh? In addition, what initiatives is the Commission considering in order to persuade the Thai authorities to revert to their previous practice of respecting the international conventions to which Thailand is a party, particularly those concerning the status of political refugees? What, more generally, is the Commission's feeling about yet more political scheming by certain well-known circles in Phnom Penh in an attempt to destroy the democratic opposition and, at the same time, hope of stronger democracy and rule of law in Cambodia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission, through its Delegations in Cambodia and in Thailand, together with the Member States' representatives and with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), has been following developments in Mr Sok Yoeun's case with the responsible government authorities.

In particular, the Commission has followed closely the rejection by the Thai appeals court, on 28 November 2003, of Mr Sok Yoeun's appeal against the decision to extradite him to Cambodia.

The latest information available to the Commission indicates that the Cambodian authorities have agreed, in principle, to no longer pursue their request for extradition of Mr Sok Yoeun. The Thai Government would take the necessary steps to ensure that Mr Sok Yoeun reunite with his family in Finland, in accordance with Thailand's legal procedures and process of law.

As regards the more general question concerning the political situation in Cambodia, the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will continue to call on all political forces in Cambodia to do their utmost to reach a solution to the present political impasse in a peaceful manner, enabling the formation of a new, democratically elected, government. One of the most important tasks of the new government, once formed, will be the reform of the legal and judicial system.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/163 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/163

---

(2004/C 84 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0100/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Language arrangements on the ‘Europa’ website

The ‘Europa’ website (http://europa.eu.int) is a means of communicating with the European public and, given the development of the electronic media, will come to dominate such communication. Unfortunately this site is increasingly making use of only three languages: French, English and German. It is true that the website opens in all eleven official languages, but as soon as the important pages containing specific, up-to-date information are reached, the number of available languages changes, so consistently that this would seem to be a ‘policy’.

I am not aware whether a decision has been taken to limit the site to three languages, or whether this is being done temporarily for practical reasons. However, I take the view that this policy is in violation of Regulation No 1 of 1958 (1) determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, and with the Treaty. Both legal sources provide that European citizens may address the institutions in any of the official EU languages and are entitled to receive a reply in the same language. As a Member of the European Parliament, I am receiving an increasing number of remarks and complaints about this situation. That is why I am asking this question.

Does the Commission not consider it important, given the increasing use of electronic communications, that these contacts with the European public via the Europa website should take place in all the EU languages? When approximately will the Commission take steps to ensure that its contacts with European citizens via the Europa website take place in all the languages of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission would first inform the Honourable Member that the Europa site respects both the spirit and the letter of the Treaties and Regulation No 1 of 1958. All legislative documents are available on the site in all the official languages of the Union. This is also the case for pages containing general information mostly intended for the general public. This is a sizeable undertaking, unparalleled anywhere in the world, and one that the Commission will be continuing after enlargement on 1 May 2004 when the number of official languages is set to nearly double.

The Honourable Member is nonetheless correct to note that, other than in the cases referred to above, the Europa site is not available in all the official languages in its entirety. However, this is nothing new and most certainly not any change in language policy as regards providing the public with information; it is merely a question of making rational use of the limited resources available. In particular, pages intended more for a specialised audience and news pages that need to be available quickly are often published in just a few languages. Such pages are published as quickly as possible in the languages available in order to provide the target audience with the information on time.

---

(1)  OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/164 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/164

---

(2004/C 84 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Debt and European professional football

It has emerged from an investigation carried out by the German football magazine ‘Kicker’ that the European professional football industry is burdened with debts amounting to no less than EUR 7 billion.

According to their statistics, there are great differences between countries. Italian and Spanish professional football organisations, for example, are in the red to the tune of about EUR 2 billion, whereas the total debt of the highest division in the Netherlands was EUR 80 million in 2002. This shows the effectiveness of the Dutch licensing system, which has been in force for years. The introduction of a licensing system for professional football organisations in Europe under pressure from the European Commission is therefore to be welcomed.

On the other hand, the astronomical level of debt of professional football clubs can play into the hands of unauthorised State support practices, which often take place under pressure from local public opinion.

One possibility for dealing with the problems in the industry would be to set up an EU competition which only football clubs from EU Member States could enter. Firstly, this would contribute to completing the single market — professional football could always be regarded as a service. Secondly, it would offer an opportunity to apply the European legislation applicable in the football sector in a decisive and uniform way. A single legal framework for the whole European professional football industry would, after all, give greater legal certainty for all the parties concerned. The annual final of the EU competition could, for example, be played in Brussels, so that the EU competition would also enhance the image of the EU.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the abovementioned indebtedness of European professional football? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the abovementioned indebtedness of European professional football?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that the resulting deterioration in the solvency of professional football organisations can encourage State support which violates EU law? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that the resulting deterioration in the solvency of professional football organisations can encourage State support which violates EU law? If not, why not?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to take steps to tackle these problems in European professional football? If so, what steps? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to take steps to tackle these problems in European professional football? If so, what steps? If not, why not?

| 4. | Is the Commission prepared to look at the possibility of setting up a European competition as outlined above? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission prepared to look at the possibility of setting up a European competition as outlined above? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the fact that some professional football clubs are facing financial difficulties, which, as stated by the Honourable Member, vary considerably from country to country.

It is possible that there may be increasing calls for public support for clubs in financial difficulty. However, professional football clubs perform an economic activity and are therefore to be considered undertakings in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty (although the question could be raised whether, and to what extent, subsidies to football clubs affect trade between Member States, especially if the club concerned is a local one which is unlikely to engage in competitions with clubs from other Member States). In as far as there is an effect on trade between Member States, football clubs are to be treated as any other undertaking under the State aid rules There are well-established rules on the granting of State aid, e.g. the guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid, that would apply. Member States need notify any aid to the Commission before aid is granted. Any aid which would be found incompatible with the common market would have to be reimbursed, with interest.

The Commission has actually recently opened a formal investigation procedure with regard to an intervention by the Italian Government vis-à-vis professional football clubs.

The Commission follows with interest the situation of professional football and will take action, where necessary, in areas falling under its responsibility. There are different ways to try to address the issue of financial difficulties that some football clubs are faced with. The national and international sport organisations also have a particular responsibility in taking care that football grows in a healthy environment. The Commission is aware that the Union of the European Football Associations (UEFA), for example, has plans to introduce clubs licensing system, in order to improve the accountability in this sector.

The Commission does not envisage setting up a European football competition.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/165 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/165

---

(2004/C 84 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Application of age limits to recruitment of workers already having fixed-term contracts over a number of years in the public sector in Greece

Directive 2000/78/EC (1) prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of age but allows different treatment if it serves to promote employment or for other objective reasons relating to the nature of the work. In the public sector in Greece, there are employees on contract who have been working for the same employer in the same job for decades. These workers, who are comparatively old, cannot compete for permanent posts or jobs for an indefinite period which are advertised by the employer for whom they have worked for numerous years because they are over the age limit stipulated in the conditions of employment.

A typical example is the case of a number of specialist doctors who had been working on contract for more than 10 years with the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) and were excluded from the procedure to recruit permanent staff specialising in the same disciplines because, at the time the posts were advertised, they were over the stipulated age limit.

Is this practice of denying workers who have already had fixed-term contracts over a number of years the opportunity of permanent employment with the same employer, on the pretext of there being an age limit, consistent with Directive 2000/78/EC and Directive 1999/70/EC (2)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation puts in place a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. The Directive covers access to employment, pay, working conditions, dismissal, training etc, and both direct and indirect discrimination are covered. The Member States had to transpose the Directive by 2 December 2003, and once it is transposed people must take their case before the national courts under national law.

Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. This could include the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training for young people and older workers, the fixing of minimum conditions for age, professional experience or seniority for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment and the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment based on the training.

The Honourable Member does not mention the upper age limit used by the Greek Power Corporation for recruitment purposes. It is not clear from the information provided whether the differences of treatment based on age described by the Honourable Member could be justified under Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC.

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) stipulates that employers must inform fixed-term workers about vacancies to ensure that they have the same opportunity to secure permanent positions as other workers. The introduction of an age limit for employment in the vacant posts is not, however, contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC. Another issue is that this Directive would not allow for successive fixed-term contracts which continue for years. The Commission has contacted the Greek authorities in order to solve the problems arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/166

---

(2004/C 84 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/04

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Use of passenger data for CAPPS II testing

The agreement on transferring PNR data to the American authorities, presented to the European Parliament by Commissioner Bolkestein on 16 December 2003, allows European citizens' personal data to be used in the testing of the controversial CAPPS II system. The Americans have apparently undertaken not to use the data in operational situations, to delete it as soon as the test phase is over and not to pass it on to third parties.

On 12 January 2004, the Washington Post reported that the American authorities had not succeeded in finding an American airline willing to take part in CAPPS II testing. In 2003, two American airlines withdrew their cooperation after protests from civil rights groups and the threat of a consumer boycott.

| 1. | Is it true that the agreement allows European citizens' personal data to be used in the testing of CAPPS II? How can the Commission guarantee that the American authorities will not, in fact, use this data in operational situations, that they will delete it as soon as the test phase is over and that they will not pass it on to third parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it true that the agreement allows European citizens' personal data to be used in the testing of CAPPS II? How can the Commission guarantee that the American authorities will not, in fact, use this data in operational situations, that they will delete it as soon as the test phase is over and that they will not pass it on to third parties?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that pledging cooperation with the testing of a system that is at odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection and that, in principle, could have remained totally outside the agreement is an ominous step? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that pledging cooperation with the testing of a system that is at odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection and that, in principle, could have remained totally outside the agreement is an ominous step?

| 3. | The report in the Washington Post indicates that the Americans have been searching for passenger data to test CAPPS II as a matter of urgency. Was the commitment given by the Commission a condition for the discreet concessions made by the Americans in other areas of the agreement that facilitated the conclusion of this agreement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

The report in the Washington Post indicates that the Americans have been searching for passenger data to test CAPPS II as a matter of urgency. Was the commitment given by the Commission a condition for the discreet concessions made by the Americans in other areas of the agreement that facilitated the conclusion of this agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

| 1. | In the framework of its negotiations with the United States (US) authorities on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, the Commission has agreed that PNR data from the EU may be used in testing CAPPS II, but only subject to very strict and limitative conditions. In addition to the conditions mentioned by the Honourable Member, all sensitive data categories must have been deleted before any testing can take place. The letter from the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market to US Homeland Security Department Secretary Ridge of 18 December 2003 on this subject, which is available on the Commission's website (1), makes it clear that the Commission is in principle prepared to co-operate with the Department of Homeland Security on CAPPS II, but only in so far as the CAPPS II system has obtained the necessary US domestic clearances first. No such testing using passenger data is in any case taking place now, as the US authorities have confirmed to us. The Commission believes that the political commitments it has received that the agreed conditions will be met can be relied on. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the framework of its negotiations with the United States (US) authorities on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, the Commission has agreed that PNR data from the EU may be used in testing CAPPS II, but only subject to very strict and limitative conditions. In addition to the conditions mentioned by the Honourable Member, all sensitive data categories must have been deleted before any testing can take place. The letter from the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market to US Homeland Security Department Secretary Ridge of 18 December 2003 on this subject, which is available on the Commission's website (1), makes it clear that the Commission is in principle prepared to co-operate with the Department of Homeland Security on CAPPS II, but only in so far as the CAPPS II system has obtained the necessary US domestic clearances first. No such testing using passenger data is in any case taking place now, as the US authorities have confirmed to us. The Commission believes that the political commitments it has received that the agreed conditions will be met can be relied on.

| 2. | The CAPPS II programme will involve the computerised pre-screening of passengers in advance of flights with the aim of concentrating examinations at the point of embarkation on those passengers who may present a rear risk. The US Department of Homeland Security considers this to be an important part of their efforts to ensure the safety of civil aviation and avoid any repetitions of the events of 9/11. The Commission would like to observe that it is premature to say that this programme is ‘at odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection’, first because CAPPS II is still under development in the US, and second because the Commission would start examining these questions only once the system has received all U.S. domestic clearances. Descriptions of CAPPS II published by the United States authorities, notably on 15 January 2003 and 31 July 2003, did indeed raise a number of specific concerns and any future possible use of data originating in the EU by this system would clearly have to be conditioned on adequate safeguards. Furthermore, the Commission is aware that the US General Accounting Office (GAO) has concluded in its February 2004 investigation requested by the US Congress that there were still a number of data protection concerns regarding CAPPS II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The CAPPS II programme will involve the computerised pre-screening of passengers in advance of flights with the aim of concentrating examinations at the point of embarkation on those passengers who may present a rear risk. The US Department of Homeland Security considers this to be an important part of their efforts to ensure the safety of civil aviation and avoid any repetitions of the events of 9/11. The Commission would like to observe that it is premature to say that this programme is ‘at odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection’, first because CAPPS II is still under development in the US, and second because the Commission would start examining these questions only once the system has received all U.S. domestic clearances. Descriptions of CAPPS II published by the United States authorities, notably on 15 January 2003 and 31 July 2003, did indeed raise a number of specific concerns and any future possible use of data originating in the EU by this system would clearly have to be conditioned on adequate safeguards. Furthermore, the Commission is aware that the US General Accounting Office (GAO) has concluded in its February 2004 investigation requested by the US Congress that there were still a number of data protection concerns regarding CAPPS II.

| 3. | The Commission has no comment to make on the article in The Washington Post, other than to say that various barriers remain to be cleared before United States domestic carriers' passenger data and subsequently EU passenger data can be used for testing CAPPS II.
  As regards testing, the Commission sees an interest in the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) testing of CAPPS II with non-United States data as well as United States data, when one of the EU's main concerns is to ensure that the system should work fairly and not in a way which discriminates against non-American citizens. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has no comment to make on the article in The Washington Post, other than to say that various barriers remain to be cleared before United States domestic carriers' passenger data and subsequently EU passenger data can be used for testing CAPPS II.

As regards testing, the Commission sees an interest in the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) testing of CAPPS II with non-United States data as well as United States data, when one of the EU's main concerns is to ensure that the system should work fairly and not in a way which discriminates against non-American citizens.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/adequacy/pnr/2003-12-18-letter-bolkestein_en.pdf

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/167

---

(2004/C 84 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0139/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Financial support for undersea optic-fibre cable link for the islands of Flores and Corvo (Azores)

An undersea optic-fibre cable link, co-funded by the Community, now connects all parts of Portugal except for the islands of Flores and Corvo in the Azores Autonomous Region. This state of affairs constitutes serious discrimination against the residents of those islands in one of the Community's most remote regions.

Can the Commission provide information on possible Community support, especially financial, for constructing an undersea optic-fibre cable link for the islands of Flores and Corvo?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The fibre-optic undersea cable linking the Azores to the mainland and the fibre-optic undersea cable between the islands (except Flores and Corvo) were part-financed by the Regis II Community Initiative. The former cost approximately EUR 16,6 million, the latter approximately EUR 12,5 million. These projects received part-financing of EUR 12,5 million and EUR 9,35 million respectively from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). REGIS II was a Community Initiative during the 1994-1999 programming period.

Submitting applications and allocating finance came under the responsibility of the regional authorities, whose aim was to develop as many projects as possible as efficiently as possible. Flores and Corvo have a combined population of 4 400 and are 140 nautical miles (about 200 kilometres) from Faial, the nearest other island, and some 500 kilometres from the most populated island (Saint Miguel). Due to the cost of providing Flores and Corvo with a fibre-optic link, it was decided to use alternative technical means (wireless data link and satellite).

This type of project could be eligible for support under the POSI operational programme, but the choice of projects for approval also has to consider their cost-effectiveness in relation to existing and foreseeable traffic and take into account the results of the alternative solutions available. Approval of the projects submitted rests with the programme manager and the managing unit (at national level) taking into account inter alia the priorities set, the selection criteria laid down and the project's economic viability so as to maximise the operational programme's effectiveness while complying with the rules in force, including those on competition.

The Commission is currently also examining the question of remotest regions' links with the rest of the Union and ways of reducing their inaccessibility, with a view to responding to the memorandum which Portugal, France and Spain sent to the Commission in June 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/168 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/168

---

(2004/C 84 E/0206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Shortage of intensive care units in Greece

There is a significant shortage of intensive care units in Greece. Under the Second Community Support Framework (CSF), measure 1.1 of the health section of the Health and Welfare Programme provides specific appropriations for the modernisation of intensive care units and the creation of new units.

| 1. | How many intensive care units were planned when the Health and Welfare Programme was submitted under the Second CSF? How many were created and how many of those are now operational? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How many intensive care units were planned when the Health and Welfare Programme was submitted under the Second CSF? How many were created and how many of those are now operational?

| 2. | How many units planned under the Second CSF were not completed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How many units planned under the Second CSF were not completed?

| 3. | How many completed units are not operational and why? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How many completed units are not operational and why?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission can inform the honourable Member that no measure of the Health and Welfare Programme of the Second Community Support Framework (CSF) provided specific appropriations for the modernisation of intensive care units and the creation of new units.

Measure 1.1 of the said operational programme provided appropriations for:

| — | the creation of building infrastructure and the procurement of related equipment to meet the needs of postgraduate education and vocational training within hospitals, |
| --- | --- |

—

the creation of building infrastructure and the procurement of related equipment to meet the needs of postgraduate education and vocational training within hospitals,

| — | the procurement of hospital and other scientific equipment for hospitals of which the (new or upgraded) building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes, |
| --- | --- |

—

the procurement of hospital and other scientific equipment for hospitals of which the (new or upgraded) building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes,

| — | the procurement of equipment for the psychiatric departments of new hospitals of which the building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes and the psychiatric units developed in existing first degree health care centres. |
| --- | --- |

—

the procurement of equipment for the psychiatric departments of new hospitals of which the building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes and the psychiatric units developed in existing first degree health care centres.

According to information received from the Greek authorities, the most accurate information available regarding the number of intensive care units in Greece is as follows. By the end of 1993 the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece had 789 beds. Today, the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece have 1 360 beds. Apart from very few exceptions, all of these beds are in operation. By the end of June 2004, the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece will have 1 466 beds.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/169

---

(2004/C 84 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0159/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Trial of women for illegal abortion in Portugal

In the town of Aveiro in Portugal, a trial is being held of women who have undergone termination of pregnancy. Despite the appeals and resolutions of the European Parliament calling on the governments of the Member States to refrain under any circumstances from prosecuting women who have had an illegal abortion, Portugal continues to enforce its criminal legislation prohibiting abortion, which is not consistent with the fundamental rights of women.

Given the differences in sexual and reproductive health and related rights in the EU and within the Member States and, in particular, the enormous disparities among Europeans in terms of access to reproductive health services, contraception and voluntary termination of pregnancy, and in view of the fact that women and men should be free to take their own responsible decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and rights, what measures will the Commission take to decriminalise abortion in the EU so that women are not brought to trial for matters relating to their physical and mental integrity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member will recall from recommendation 13 of the Van Lancker report on sexual and reproductive rights, which was adopted in July 2002 by the Parliament, that criminal law applying to illegal abortion of national citizens is entirely a national competence of the Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/169

---

(2004/C 84 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

The security mechanisms employed in the EU institutions have failed to detect the letter bombs sent to senior officials over the last few weeks.

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks. Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials' desks without being inspected by a real professional in this sphere — a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

| — | Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions? |
| --- | --- |

—

Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions?

| — | Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives?

| — | Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in particular when it comes to checking items of mail? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in particular when it comes to checking items of mail?

| — | Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other Institutions. The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/170 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/170

---

(2004/C 84 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   National immigration plans

In its endeavour to implement the decisions taken at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 concerning ‘a common asylum and migration policy’, the Commission requested the Member States to draw up and submit national migration plans.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Have the Member States submitted their national migration plans? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Have the Member States submitted their national migration plans?

| 2. | Has the Greek Government submitted the Greek migration plan? If so, does the Commission have any comments to make in that respect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Greek Government submitted the Greek migration plan? If so, does the Commission have any comments to make in that respect?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Open Method of Co-ordination for the Community Immigration Policy (1), the Commission set out its proposals for the adaptation of the open method of co-ordination in the field of migration policy.

The Honourable Member rightly points out that the instruments and methods proposed in this Communication (section 4) include the preparation and review of national action plans on immigration, on an annual basis.

Given that the Council has not yet endorsed the Commission's proposal to set up an open method of co-ordination for the Community immigration policy the operational phase of this method has not yet been launched and Member States have not been requested so far to submit national action plans on immigration.

However, in the context of a reinforced information exchange on national integration policies, launched by the Commission in 2003, Greece has submitted a national report on the integration of immigrants. This piece of information was referred to and commented upon in the recent Commission Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment (2).

---

(1)  COM(2001) 387 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/171

---

(2004/C 84 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece

Article 18 of Directive 2000/78 (1) on equal treatment in employment and occupation states that the Member States shall implement the Directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest except where ‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination.’

What does the Commission understand by ‘particular conditions’ and ‘if necessary’ in order to extend the deadline for implementing the Directive? Which Member States have requested an extension to the deadline for implementation? When are the Member States required to implement the other provisions of the Directive not pertaining to age and disability discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Under Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Member States may, if necessary, in order to take account of particular conditions, have an additional three year period to implement the provisions of the Directive relating to discrimination on grounds of age and disability. The Directive does not define what is meant by ‘particular conditions’ nor ‘if necessary’.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have notified the Commission that they will avail themselves of this provision. The reasons given vary, but include, for example, the fact that national law does not currently recognise the concept of ‘reasonable accom-modation’, the possible effect on retirement age and occupational pensions, etc. The Member States which take advantage of the extra time period are obliged to inform the Commission on an annual basis what steps they are taking to tackle discrimination and the progress they are making towards full transposition of the Directive.

All other provisions of this Directive had to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. The Commission has already launched the first stage of infringement procedures against those Member States which have not yet notified their national legislation, or have not adopted all the legislation necessary (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom).

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/172 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/172

---

(2004/C 84 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0192/04

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Repayments under n+2 rule

Will the European Commission please supply its best estimate of what the United Kingdom, under the n+2 rule, will have to pay back by region for the financial year 2003?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The application of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) requires that the Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment application by the end of the second year following the year of commitment. There are certain exceptions in the case of judicial procedure and administrative appeals.

At the present time, the Commision has not completed the processing of payment declarations relating to 2001 and it is not therefore in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member at this stage. The Commission has undertaken to inform the Member States by end-February 2004 on any possible automatic decommitments resulting from the application of the ‘n+2’ rule for the period ending on 31 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/172 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/172

---

(2004/C 84 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0195/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Access to medical treatment in Member States

Can the Commission confirm that it is the case that under a ruling of the EU courts, patients who cannot access essential medical treatment within a reasonable timeframe in their own State have the right to access such treatment in other EU Member States and that their own State will meet the bill for such treatment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission confirms that in its judgments in the Smits and Peerbooms (1) and Müller-Fauré/van Riet (2) cases, the Court of Justice stated that, pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Treaty, authorisation to undergo hospital treatment in another Member State cannot be refused in the event that the same or equally effective treatment for the patient cannot be obtained without undue delay within the national territory.

The Court of Justice specified that ‘in order to determine whether treatment which is equally effective for the patient can be obtained without undue delay in an establishment having an agreement with the insured person's fund, the national authorities are required to have regard to all the circumstances of each specific case and to take due account not only of the patient's medical condition at the time when authorisation is sought and, where appropriate, of the degree of pain or the nature of the patient's disability which might, for example, make it impossible or extremely difficult for him to carry out a professional activity, but also of his medical history’ (Müller-Fauré/van Riet judgment, paragraph 90).

The Court of Justice also specified that such authorisation could not be refused solely on the grounds that there were waiting lists on national territory for the hospital treatment concerned, without account being taken of the specific circumstances attaching to the patient's medical condition.

Under Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3), the competent institution in the Member State where the individual is insured is responsible for reimbursing the medical costs incurred in another Member State by patients with an authorisation. Responsibility for these costs is borne according to the principles of that Regulation (application of the conditions of the country where benefits are provided), and Article 36 of the Regulation determines the practical conditions for taking responsibility between social security institutions. It should be noted that in the Vanbraekel judgment (4), the Court of Justice considered that this Regulation ‘does not in any way prevent the reimbursement by Member States, at the tariffs in force in the competent State, of costs incurred in connection with treatment provided in another Member State (see Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, paragraph 27) where the legislation of the Member State in which the person concerned is insured makes provision for such reimbursement and the tariffs applied under that legislation are more beneficial than those applied by the Member State in which the treatment was provided.’

---

(1)  Judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [12.07.01], ECR 2001, p. I-05473.

(2)  Judgment of 13 May 2003 in Case C-385/99 V.G. Müller-Fauré v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorkverzekeringen UA and E.E. M. Van Riet v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorkverzekeringen, ECR 2003, p. I-04509.

(3)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, as updated by Regulation 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(4)  Judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-368/98 Vanbraekel, ECR 2001, p. I-05363.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/173 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/173

---

(2004/C 84 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0196/04

by Ward Beysen (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Temporary agency workers directive

Does the definition of ‘pay’ exclude pensions, other financial benefits and overtime? If so, does the Commission intend to expressly exclude these items in the proposed directive?

If the aforementioned items are not expressly excluded from the proposed Directive, is it intended that their application (or exclusion) should be determined by Member States or by collective agreements? If so, does the Commission intend to expressly state this intention in the proposed directive?

Does the Commission intend the comparison of basic working and employment conditions to be made on the basis of an overall comparison rather than an item-by-item comparison?

Does the Commission intend to make it clear in the proposed directive that temporary workers should be paid according to their qualifications, expertise and the nature of the job — meaning that in some circumstances temporary workers could be paid less than permanent workers?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Honourable Member questions the Commission about certain provisions in the proposed directive on working conditions for temporary agency workers.

Regarding the definition of salary, the Commission noted that during their negotiations in the Council the Member States deemed it necessary to point out that the principle of non-discrimination does not apply to occupational social security schemes, including occupational pension and health insurance schemes and financial contribution schemes. On the other hand it has always been very clear that overtime is included in the definition of salary. Providing for the contrary or granting such an exemption has not at any time been considered.

With regard to general working and employment conditions, reference should be made to the amended Commission proposal. The principle of non-discrimination has essentially been reformulated in such a manner as to rule out any alternative. The same basic working and employment conditions that the worker would have enjoyed if he/she had been recruited directly by the user undertaking to hold the same job, should be applied to the temporary agency worker. From now on, the point of reference is the post held by the temporary agency worker. Their situation is no longer comparable to that of any similar worker employed by the user undertaking. On the other hand, the basic working and employment conditions that should be set are those that the user undertaking would have had to apply if, instead of employing an agency temp, it had decided to recruit directly, for an identical period of time

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/174

---

(2004/C 84 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0197/04

by Ward Beysen (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Use of State funds to reduce electricity prices for industrial users

The latest figures from Eurostat show that the downward trend in the cost of electricity to industrial users is coming to an end. With this in mind, I have noted the statements emanating from Britain that it is proposed to grant industrial customers a generous (10 %) State subsidy on electricity prices.

According to my information, the statement issued on this subject was based on consultation with the Commission.

In view of the vital role of industrial electricity prices in attracting domestic investment, I should be interested to know the Commission's opinion of this approach. Does the Commission intend to make this instrument available to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of any British proposal to grant industrial customers a ten per cent State subsidy on electricity prices that the Honourable Member refers to in his written question.

The Commission is watching developments in the energy market with all due attention. It will request information from the United Kingdom authorities to investigate the alleged subsidy. The Commission will not fail to take appropriate action if infringements of the relevant Community legislation are discovered.

All due attention would be given to any more detailed information on such proposals that the Honourable Member might provide to the Commission.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/175 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/175

---

(2004/C 84 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/04

by Ioannis Marinos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   The ‘Bob Programme’ and road accidents

According to the Community's Financial Report for 2002, the foreword to which was written by the Commissioner responsible for the budget, Michaele Schreyer, 40 000 people died and 1,7 million were injured in road accidents in the European Union in the year 2000 (pages 57 and 58 of the document). The Commission supports the ‘Bob Programme’, the aim of which is to encourage car users to designate a person among their group who will not consume alcoholic drinks during their outing so as to be able to drive the others back safely after the event. On page 58 of the document it is stated that the ‘Bob programme’ was first implemented in Belgium in 1995, to be copied subsequently by other Member States adopting different names (e.g. ‘Lince’ in Spain, ‘Joker’ in Portugal etc.), while in Greece and the Netherlands the programme was introduced under the name of ‘Bob’.

What data does the Commission have on the results of implementing the programme in Greece? Has there been a decrease, and by what percentage, in road accidents in Greece, the country with the most fatal accidents in proportion to its population in the whole of the Union? What funding did the Greek authorities receive to implement the programme and how was that funding used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Between 2001 and 2003, the Commission supported ‘designated driver’ road-safety campaigns in Greece and several other Member States, encouraging people not to drink and drive.

The maximum grants allocated to Greece were EUR 174 000, EUR 163 000 and EUR 72 000 respectively, which is between 22 % and 7 % of total grants.

This funding was used to adapt the Belgian ‘BOB’ campaign to Greek culture. Specifically, this involved producing posters, TV and radio spots, advertising inserts in the press, and an educational video, developing a website, and, in collaboration with driving schools, organising a training course for young drivers.

One of the objectives of the Greek campaign was to reduce the number of alcohol-related road accidents by 15 % in three years. The provisional statistics for 2003 show that the total number of fatalities fell by 22 percentage points between 2000 and 2003.

On 27 May 2003, the Commission held a public seminar in Brussels to assess the effectiveness of these campaigns with all the organisers. Information on the presentations that were made, including the presentation of the Greek campaign, can be found on the website for the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (1).

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/behaviour/alcohol/conf_designated_drivers_en.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/176

---

(2004/C 84 E/0216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/04

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Malta's accession and maritime safety

The Maltese commercial fleet, the third largest in the world, includes a number of oil tankers. The ‘Erika’ was registered in Malta, for instance. On the eve of the country's entry into the European Union, ships flying the Maltese flag remain on the Paris Memorandum of Understanding blacklist.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the comprehensive monitoring report of 5 November 2003 on Malta's preparations for membership (1) acknowledges that Malta risks not meeting the membership requirements that apply to the area of maritime transport in time for accession.

Is Malta's maritime administration, for all its efforts, actually able to ensure that checks are carried out on vessels that register with it and that Council Directive 94/57 is applied, when the vast majority of these vessels belong to shipowners from third countries?

Likewise, is the Maltese maritime administration capable of verifying that the organisations to which it entrusts inspection, survey and certification duties meet the approval requirements?

If Malta does not satisfactorily honour its duties with regard to inspections and safety, will the burden, and substantial and disproportionate responsibilities, not pass to the port States of the EU? Does the Commission consider that these countries have the regulatory and financial means to deal with a situation of this kind?

In view of the worryingly high detention rate in Community ports of Maltese-flagged vessels, how is the Commission planning to proceed in the case of ships that have been repeatedly detained within a period of a few months?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that future EU Member States need to meet Community maritime safety standards. The Commission reminded Malta, in the comprehensive monitoring report of 5 November 2003 on Malta's preparations for membership, that it had serious concerns, particularly regarding flag State control, and that urgent improvement was needed. The Commission notes that the problems have persisted, though it welcomes the progress made by Malta since the publication of the monitoring report, particularly in aligning its legislation with Community acquis on maritime safety. The Commission will continue to pay close attention to developments in this area.

The Commission will see to it that the Maltese authorities pursue their commitment to recruit properly qualified personnel to meet flag State control requirements.

With regard to the application of Directive 94/57/EC (2), ship ownership is not the decisive factor as the purpose of the Directive is to provide for a system of inspections and surveys in accordance with the provisions in the relevant international conventions — resulting in the issuing, or not, of the appropriate certificates.

Following accession, the Maltese authorities will have no choice but to have these tasks carried out by bodies approved at European level in accordance with the provisions of the Directive, and the construction and maintenance standards applicable to the Maltese merchant fleet will have to meet the requirements of one of those bodies. Accordingly, accession will help to improve the safety of the Maltese fleet, which will benefit from the full application of the Community mechanisms ensuring a high level of performance from classification societies. The Commission will ensure that the Maltese authorities, like every other delegating State, meets its obligations to monitor the delegated bodies every two years.

The Commission — while noting the clear and steady reduction in the rate of detention of Maltese ships in recent years — is particularly conscious of the fact that Malta is still on the Paris Memorandum of Understanding blacklist. In any event, the Commission would emphasise that the consequences for Maltese-flagged ships which are detained will not change with Malta's accession to the Union: ships flying the Maltese flag which have been ‘detained more than twice in the course of the preceding 24 months in a port of a State signatory of the MOU’ will be refused access to ports in the Member States in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2001/106/EC (3) amending the port State control Directive.

The Commission considers it most important that flag States meet their obligations and would remind the Honourable Member that a legislative proposal on the implementation of international instruments by flag States in the Community is being prepared as part of the new legislative package it will be proposing.

---

(1)  SEC(2003) 1206 final.

(2)  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(3)  Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 9 5/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/177 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/177

---

(2004/C 84 E/0217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Food safety and developing countries

I found the Commission's answer to my previous Written Question (E-3176/03) (1) disappointing and unsatisfactory.

Can the Commission indicate whether the new food safety rules have made it easier or more difficult for developing countries to sell their products on the EU market?

Has the Commission had any reaction from third countries? If so, what reaction?

Have any efforts been made to estimate the impact on developing countries? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission regrets that the Honourable Member considers the answer to Written Question E-3176/03 disappointing and unsatisfactory. The Commission tried to give as complete a picture as possible of the consequences of the new legislation concerning food safety for trade with developing countries. The Commission stated that the picture cannot be complete because the import and export chapter of the General Food Law is not yet applicable, and the proposals for the hygiene package and for a regulation on Food and Feed Control are still under discussion. The Commission's position was that as a result of the new legislation the production and control structures in exporting third countries might need to be adapted and that it is expected that due to this adaptation, exportation could be more difficult for developing countries in the short term. The Commission however also expressed its expectation that with EU trade-related assistance and capacity building these difficulties can be surmounted. What to do specifically should be an element in the dialogue between the EC and its development partners.

The Commission has notified the proposals for the new food safety legislation to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). From the developing countries only Brazil reacted as regards the hygiene package. Brazil had no fundamental objections to the approach of this proposal but it expressed technical and procedural comments and time and financial constraints as regards the implementation of certain aspects. In the meetings of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Committee of the WTO no reaction was noted from the developing countries.

In the meantime discussions in the Council and Parliament continued. The impact of the proposal for a regulation concerning food and feed control (2) on the developing countries was part of these discussions. As a result Member States suggested that Article 50 of this proposal oblige the Commission, through the Community Development and Cooperation Policy, to support developing countries in their general food safety policy and in building their institutional capacity to meet EC requirements. Member States also suggested to delete from the text the requirement for a control plan in exporting third countries as a condition for import into the EU. Instead the Commission could request information from third countries on their control systems and that on that basis specific measures can be taken. These discussions also revealed that in certain sectors such as in the horticulture sector some developing countries have not yet built up control structures. These issues form part of the dialogue between the Institutions with a view to rapid adoption of the proposal. With the tools that the final text should offer, including the setting of transitional periods, it is expected that existing trade can continue, even when there is no competent controlling authority for a certain sector in a third country, whilst efforts can be made to increase the institutional capacity of these countries.

The Commission is finalizing its internal procedures for launching a study to assess the potential impact of the proposed regulation on food and feed control on trade with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and to get recommendations on how trade-related assistance could help the developing countries to adjust their systems. The Commission is in close contact with ACP countries in connection with the above-mentioned study.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(2)  COM(2003) 52.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/178 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/178

---

(2004/C 84 E/0218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/04

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the directive on the safety of cableways

The European Union has recently adopted a directive on the safety of cableways. The Member States are in the process of transposing it into national law.

In Germany, the rules on cableway requirements are the responsibility of the Länder. The German Länder include city-states such as Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin and flat, coastal Länder like Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein.

Is it true, as reported in the press, that the Commission intends to oblige even the above Länder to transpose the directive into a law on cableways or face a penalty, even though, for topographical reasons, cable cars can never be installed there?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Article 21 of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (1) specifies that Member States should have adopted and published the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 3 May 2002.

Germany has thus been under an obligation to take the necessary measures to transpose the Directive into national law within the required time. According to the information available to the Commission, this has not yet been done in full; only the Länder of Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia have adopted the above provisions.

Consequently, in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, after first giving Germany the opportunity to comment (in a letter dated 16 September 2002) and then issuing a reasoned opinion (on 19 December 2002), on 16 October 2003 the Commission referred the matter to the Court of Justice on the grounds that that Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive by not adopting the necessary provisions to transpose it into national law.

It should be pointed out that this Directive does not cover the actual operation of cableway installations. It defines the essential safety requirements applying to the design, construction and putting into service of the installations. The Directive is based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty and is also intended to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of safety subsystems and components of cableway installations placed on the internal market from 3 May 2004 by manufacturers established anywhere in the Community, including those regions in which there are no cableway installations.

Furthermore, according to the case law of the Court, the fact that an activity referred to in a directive does not exist in a particular Member State cannot release that State from its obligation to transpose the directive within the time limit (2).

Finally, the construction of cableway installations cannot automatically be ruled out in any of the Länder, since this type of installation can be used not only in high-altitude tourist resorts but may also consist of cableway installations used in urban transport facilities, as mentioned in the first recital of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 3.5.2000.

(2)  See the judgments of 15.03.1990, case C-339/87, Commission v. Netherlands, ECR 1990, p. I-851, point 22, and 16.11.2000, case C-214/98, Commission v. Greece, ECR 2000, p. I-9601, point 22.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/179 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/179

---

(2004/C 84 E/0219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Parkinson's disease

According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide there are an estimated 4 million people suffering from Parkinson's disease. In Europe, the overall prevalence of the disease is estimated to be 1,6 per 100 in persons over 65 years of age. One person in 500 develops the disease, which already makes it the fourth most common disorder of the nervous system, after epilepsy, cerebrovascular diseases and Alzheimer's disease. The situation is worsening as a result of the ageing of the population — in 2020 there will be 40 percent more people over the age of 75 in Europe compared to 1990, which is likely to make Parkinson's disease a public health priority, with a significant increase in health costs. One of the most effective surgical treatments available is deep brain stimulation. A medical device similar to a cardiac pacemaker is implanted and used to transmit electrical stimulation to a specific area of the deep brain to treat the disabling symptoms of the disease. The degree of stimulation can be regulated and the effects are reversible. The percentage of patients who have access to this innovative treatment is very small. In Switzerland, for instance, it is 29,4 %, in France 9,8 %, in Spain 8,4 %, in Germany 5,2 % and in the United Kingdom 4,6 %. In Italy the percentage of patients offered treatment is 5 %.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of these figures, which reflect an emergency health problem in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of these figures, which reflect an emergency health problem in Europe?

| 2. | Has the Commission made arrangements, in cooperation with the health services of the Member States, to monitor the incidence of Parkinson's disease in the European population? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission made arrangements, in cooperation with the health services of the Member States, to monitor the incidence of Parkinson's disease in the European population?

| 3. | Does the Commission consider it necessary to launch an information campaign on Parkinson's disease in view of the advisability of early treatment to slow down progression of the disease? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to launch an information campaign on Parkinson's disease in view of the advisability of early treatment to slow down progression of the disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

| 1. | The prevalence of Parkinson's disease rises from 0,6 % at age 65 to 3,5 % at age 85 and above, with no great difference between men and women. It is one of the most common neuro-degenerative diseases of the elderly. The differences between countries do not seem to be significant (data available for Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands, 1997) (Source: Public health in the EU, Sanco C, 2003).
  There is no convincing evidence of differences in rates of prevalence in the countries of Europe. Estimates suggest that approximately 400 000 men and 540 000 women of 65 and above living in the EU have Parkinson's disease. However, a substantial proportion of patients with Parkinson's disease remains undetected among the general population.
  The Commission funded a study in 1998 on hospital discharges in certain EU countries for Alzheimer's and other neuro-degenerative diseases (including Parkinson's), but covering different periods. The results show the degree of hospitalisation for Parkinson's disease to be very low.
  Parkinson's disease represents a serious health situation, as indeed do all the other disabling diseases associated with the ageing of the population. Moreover, ‘health and ageing’ is actually one of the priority themes in the Community Public Health Programme work plan 2004, strand 1, Health Information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The prevalence of Parkinson's disease rises from 0,6 % at age 65 to 3,5 % at age 85 and above, with no great difference between men and women. It is one of the most common neuro-degenerative diseases of the elderly. The differences between countries do not seem to be significant (data available for Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands, 1997) (Source: Public health in the EU, Sanco C, 2003).

There is no convincing evidence of differences in rates of prevalence in the countries of Europe. Estimates suggest that approximately 400 000 men and 540 000 women of 65 and above living in the EU have Parkinson's disease. However, a substantial proportion of patients with Parkinson's disease remains undetected among the general population.

The Commission funded a study in 1998 on hospital discharges in certain EU countries for Alzheimer's and other neuro-degenerative diseases (including Parkinson's), but covering different periods. The results show the degree of hospitalisation for Parkinson's disease to be very low.

Parkinson's disease represents a serious health situation, as indeed do all the other disabling diseases associated with the ageing of the population. Moreover, ‘health and ageing’ is actually one of the priority themes in the Community Public Health Programme work plan 2004, strand 1, Health Information.

| 2. | Apart from the abovementioned initiatives, the theme of neuro-degenerative diseases (including Parkinson's) was not addressed, or was addressed only very marginally, in the previous health surveillance programme (the sole exception was Alzheimer's disease).
  The new Community Public Health Programme 2003-2008 provides for the implementation of a disease information and surveillance system. A specific working group on major and chronic diseases has been set up, and its work will cover, ‘inter alia’, neuro-degenerative diseases. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Apart from the abovementioned initiatives, the theme of neuro-degenerative diseases (including Parkinson's) was not addressed, or was addressed only very marginally, in the previous health surveillance programme (the sole exception was Alzheimer's disease).

The new Community Public Health Programme 2003-2008 provides for the implementation of a disease information and surveillance system. A specific working group on major and chronic diseases has been set up, and its work will cover, ‘inter alia’, neuro-degenerative diseases.

| 3. | The Community Public Health Programme opens up funding opportunities for activities designed to implement the Programme's objectives. A call for proposals is due to be published shortly. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Community Public Health Programme opens up funding opportunities for activities designed to implement the Programme's objectives. A call for proposals is due to be published shortly.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/180 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/180

---

(2004/C 84 E/0220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0244/04

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Spanish National Hydrological Plan — cost and price of water

The water costs envisaged in Law No 10/2001 of 5 July 2003 on the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (NHP) differ significantly from the average cost estimated in independent studies such as that by the Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua, which indicates that the average cost passed on to users will be EUR 0,45 per cubic metre of water, while the figures from the Spanish Government, which defends the economic and environmental viability of the NHP, show that cost to be EUR 0,205.

Given the inaccuracies and differences that exist between the economic studies presented by the Spanish Government and those presented by experts from other organisations, the European Commission has asked the Spanish Government to provide additional information on the price and cost of water from the Ebro transfer.

Does the Commission consider that the Spanish Government has provided justification for the cost of a cubic metre of water transferred from the Ebro being lower in Murcia or Almeria — after hundreds of kilometres and various pumping operations — than in Barcelona? Does it consider the prices and costs that appear in the NHP economic analysis to constitute covert subsidising of economic output and activities in certain Community regions, in unfair competition with those in other areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

With regard to the projected costs of water to be delivered by the proposed Ebro transfer, the Commission is aware of the differences in the cost projections made on the one hand by the Government of Spain and on the other hand by organisations such as the Foundation for a New Water Culture.

The Commission is also aware that the projected price of water to be paid by private users in Barcelona may be considerably higher than the price of water delivered to farmers in Almeria and Murcia. Traditionally across the EU, the price paid by individual water consumers is considerably higher than the prices paid by farmers.

Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1)) imposes upon Member States the obligation to respect the principle of cost recovery for water services, to use price incentives to encourage efficient water use and to achieve an equitable balance of the cost burden between different water users. However, in deciding their pricing arrangements, Member States may take into account social and economic considerations as well as geographic and climatic conditions.

In December 2003, the Commission received four separate but related requests for Community funds to support the building of the infrastructure for the Ebro transfer. The Commission is currently evaluating these requests in the light of the rules and procedures which apply to the structural funds and the cohesion fund. Part of this evaluation includes an assessment of the economic and financial justification for the projects.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/181

---

(2004/C 84 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Impact assessment of OPTA decisions

The European Telecoms package is currently being implemented in the Netherlands by means of a new Telecoms law. This new law gives OPTA, the Netherlands Telecoms regulator, greater powers.

In November 2003 the Second Chamber adopted an amendment resulting in ex-ante control of OPT A's decisions. OPTA will be required to carry out an impact assessment of any far-reaching decision, indicating the repercussions of the measure on a firm and setting out the alternatives.

Ex-post control of OPTA already exists in that any firm can challenge an OPTA decision in the courts. Furthermore, OPTA is required to submit its decisions to the other European Telecoms regulators.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options?

| 2. | Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for longer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for longer?

| 3. | Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into national law?

| 4. | If so, what action does the Commission intend to take? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

As was the case on the occasion of the Commmission's reply to the previous question of the Honourable Member on a closely related subject (P-2753/03 (1)), the Commission has not received notification from the Dutch authorities of legislative measures transposing the new regulatory framework on electronic communications.

In addition to the information provided in the response to the above-mentioned written question, on 17 December 2003 the second stage of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was launched against the Netherlands, among others, for non-communication of its transposition measures (2). As the Commission has not received notification of the transposition measures from the Dutch authorities, it is not yet possible to determine whether the legislation transposing the new framework in the Netherlands will be in compliance with it, including as regards the discretionary powers of the national regulatory authority (NRA).

The Commission will analyse the legislative measures transposing the new framework in the Netherlands once they have been notified and, in the event of non-compliance, may propose the opening of an infringement proceeding. In the case of persisting non-compliance with the Directive's provisions, the Commission might decide to apply to the Court of Justice after issuing a reasoned opinion. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Court has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a transposition measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 755.

(2)  IP/03/1750 of 17.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/182 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/182

---

(2004/C 84 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Retirement age of football referees

Pierluigi Collina is the best football referee in the world and has been voted the game's best official six times. Yet in 2005 he will no longer be able to referee, as 45 is the official retirement age for his profession in Italy. Other Member States also have a retirement age of 45 for football referees.

Would the Commission agree that this rule constitutes age discrimination under EU law?

Would the Commission also agree that this rule is in breach of EU employment laws?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

According to the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to give an opinion on this particular case since:

| — | The rule seems to be applied to all categories of referees and it is necessary to know whether it is a genuine sport rule. This economic impact is indeed required to justify the applicability of Community rules (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

The rule seems to be applied to all categories of referees and it is necessary to know whether it is a genuine sport rule. This economic impact is indeed required to justify the applicability of Community rules (1);

| — | There is no evidence about the possible arguments used by sports organizations to justify the establishment of such an age limit. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is no evidence about the possible arguments used by sports organizations to justify the establishment of such an age limit.

The Commission can therefore only recall that Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of, ‘inter alia’, age and must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. In addition, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have informed the Commission that they will use this additional three years, and Denmark one extra year. Italy has transposed Directive 2000/78/EC by Decree No 216 of 13 August 2003, which entered into force on 28 August 2003. As Italy has transposed the Directive, individual complaints of discrimination should be made under the national law before the national courts.

Furthermore, the Commission recalls that Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. The use of fixed age limits could only be used where they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.

---

(1)  Joint cases ‘Deliège’ C-51/96 and C-191/97.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/183

---

(2004/C 84 E/0223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Labelling of bread

Recently, Italian bakers joined forces in a campaign to save their profession. They have drafted a proposal for a law to regulate the use of the term ‘fresh bread’, to ensure that it is applied only to bread made by traditional methods and sold on the day it is made. Consequently, only undertakings which are responsible for the whole production process from beginning to end will be able to call themselves ‘bakeries’, and will be able to label their bread as ‘fresh bread’. The problem that Italian bakers — and European bakers in general — have had to cope with for many years now is competition from bread sold in supermarkets. In most cases, supermarket bread is a product which is partially baked in the factory, frozen and transported to the place of sale, where it is placed in electric ovens to give it a similar colour, appearance and taste to freshly baked bread. By this means, the supermarkets manage to be extremely competitive on the market by reducing production costs. Bakers practising their profession in the traditional way are obliged — by the very nature of the product — to work at night, and consequently to pay their employees a higher rate, which greatly increases the cost of fresh bread. Consequently, consumers — as shown by recent surveys — are increasingly likely, on economic grounds, to buy their bread in supermarkets. Often, however, consumers base their decision to do so on a mistaken assumption, which is that the product they are buying is the same as, rather than similar to, the product offered by traditional bakeries.

In view of the foregoing,

| 1. | Would the Commission state whether it is possible to adopt at European level a label certifying the quality and freshness of bread? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would the Commission state whether it is possible to adopt at European level a label certifying the quality and freshness of bread?

| 2. | What are the Commission's views on this subject? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What are the Commission's views on this subject?

| 3. | What, in the Commission's opinion, are the most effective measures that could be taken to help save traditional bakers' occupational category, in view of the fact that last year, for example, two thousand bakeries had to close in Germany and, in the south of France, bread is sold almost exclusively in supermarkets? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What, in the Commission's opinion, are the most effective measures that could be taken to help save traditional bakers' occupational category, in view of the fact that last year, for example, two thousand bakeries had to close in Germany and, in the south of France, bread is sold almost exclusively in supermarkets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The range of bakery products available in the EU is enormous, reflecting the multitude of regional and local customs and traditions.

Moreover, as the Honourable Member rightly states, these products are usually produced in whole or in part at their place of sale and are therefore not exported to other Member States to any significant extent.

This means that legislation setting harmonised, EU-level quality standards for bakery products would be difficult to achieve and would not meet a real need.

However, Member States, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, may decide to take measures of this kind at national level, within the rules laid down by Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/184 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/184

---

(2004/C 84 E/0224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0256/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

Section 4 of the open call for proposals for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality, entitled ‘Who can submit a proposal?’, stipulates what kind of organisations may present a proposal as a promoter and what kind may act as partners in a proposal.

The wording of section 4 suggests that NGOs wishing to participate as promoters must be in one of the two following situations:

| — | according to paragraph 1, the NGO must be ‘organised at European level’; in the absence of specific European legislation governing associations, the only way for NGOs to demonstrate their ‘European dimension’ is by having offices in three or more Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to paragraph 1, the NGO must be ‘organised at European level’; in the absence of specific European legislation governing associations, the only way for NGOs to demonstrate their ‘European dimension’ is by having offices in three or more Member States;

| — | according to paragraph 4, promoters must be a transnational network of organisations which are ‘legally established or equivalent’; this requirement creates legal uncertainty since ‘transnational networks’ as such do not figure in national or European law and therefore cannot be ‘legally established or similar’. |
| --- | --- |

—

according to paragraph 4, promoters must be a transnational network of organisations which are ‘legally established or equivalent’; this requirement creates legal uncertainty since ‘transnational networks’ as such do not figure in national or European law and therefore cannot be ‘legally established or similar’.

Does the Commission not think that this restriction based on size and the accompanying uncertainty could become a real obstacle to participation by NGOs and could even prevent women's organisations from becoming promoters of proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

In accordance with the Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) (1), Community actions are implemented with a view to achieving the objectives referred to in the above programme within a transnational framework. The types of action to be taken under the programme are set out in three strands, the third of which, ‘Strengthening capacity’, provides for transnational exchange actions involving a range of players from at least three Member States. These actions ‘may be undertaken by NGOs or social partners at European level and transnational networks of regional or local authorities and of organisations which aim to promote gender equality’.

The call for proposals (VP/2002/6) mentioned by the Honourable Member was issued as part of this approach. The Commission decided to highlight the transnational aspect in the actions it cofinances by establishing eligibility, selection and award criteria which encourage NGOs, public authorities and women's organisations, even small ones, to aim at forms of association which strengthen the European added value of their projects.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000 establishing a Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality, OJ L 17, 19.1.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/185

---

(2004/C 84 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

In order to determine how section 4 of the above call for proposals is to be interpreted and the implications for participation by women's organisations, will the Commission provide a list of the promoters who have submitted proposals and a list of promoters whose proposals were successful under the 2003 call for proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The list of projects received under the open call for proposals VP/2002/6 and the list of projects selected for subsidy are being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat. The list of selected projects will be published as soon as possible on the Internet site of the Community Institutions in accordance with Article 169(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1).

This list has been drawn up on the basis of the exclusion, selection and award criteria laid down in the text of the call for proposals.

---

(1)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/186

---

(2004/C 84 E/0226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Cambodia: Assassination of members of the Opposition

On 22 January 2004, Chea Vichea, a Cambodian trade union leader, was assassinated in broad daylight in the centre of Phnom Penh. Chea Vichea, aged 36, was the President of the Cambodian Free Trade Union of Workers, a movement that he had himself founded in 1996 together with the leader of the Opposition, Sam Rainsy. With more than 38 000 members, it is by far the most active and most significant trade union. In July 2003, Chea Vichea had received a death threat over his mobile telephone — a text message threatening him with death. The police had succeeded in identifying the person who had sent the message. However, since the person involved was very powerful, the police had told Chea Vichea that it could not protect him and advised him to leave the country. Chea Vichea had also protested about this episode to the UN Human Rights Bureau. The US State Department immediately issued a strong denunciation of the assassination, the latest in a long series of politically-motivated murders and attempted murders which, over recent months and weeks, have targeted activists in the Sam Rainsy Party, the Opposition party which, together with Funcinpec, constitutes the Alliance of Democrats. For example, Mr Lay Kong was murdered on 10 January 2004. On 15 January, Mr Chhin La and Mr Keo Chan suffered the same fate. On 16 January, Mr Chhoeum Chhoeung miraculously escaped assassination by taking refuge in the regional headquarters of the SRP. A large number of political analysts blame the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, and his cohorts for this atmosphere of tension and terror which has been created so as to ensure that the Opposition bows to the wishes of the Prime Minister with regard to the formation of the new government.

Has the Commission issued an official response to the murders of eminent politicians and political activists over the last few weeks in Cambodia? What measures has it taken, or will it take, so as to make it crystal clear to the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, that these methods are totally unacceptable? Does not the Commission feel that a situation of this nature demands a strong and consistent approach from the international community? In that connection, does not the Commission feel that it might usefully propose to the Council that it launch a joint initiative with the United States, Japan and Australia so that it may play a leading role in the devising of a political solution to the serious crisis that is currently affecting Cambodia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the recent acts of violence and the climate of intimidation and impunity that still prevails in Cambodia.

The Commission sincerely hopes that the Cambodian authorities will take all the necessary steps, in accordance with due process of law, to tackle the recent acts of violence. It also supports calls on all political parties in Cambodia to continue to pursue negotiations, in a constructive and peaceful manner, which would lead to the swift formation of a new government.

The Commission and Member States in Phnom Penh will continue to follow the situation in Cambodia closely and remain ready to consider any further actions which could lead to a solution of the political impasse.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/186

---

(2004/C 84 E/0227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Blue tongue disease — protection of stock farmers in Lazio

Following the outbreak of ovine catarrhal fever in four Member States in 2000 (Italy, Spain, Greece and France), measures were taken to combat and eradicate so-called ‘blue tongue’ disease.

At present there are no established cases confirming that the virus exists and is circulating in Italy. In recent years, however, the region of Lazio has employed vast resources to meet its Community obligations on time. Nevertheless, stock farmers in the Lazio region have questioned the need to continue vaccinating animals, given that there is still no scientific guarantee that the process is harmless. Indeed, the compulsory nature of vaccination in recent years has clearly caused harm to animals, in particular a decline in production, a reduction in milk yield and deterioration in animal welfare conditions on farms.

In addition, there is also a real danger that the 20 000 or more farms in Lazio will see a drastic decline in productivity with serious socio-economic implications, as they are forbidden to transport vaccinated animals without a health certificate from their region of origin.

Will the Commission say:

| 1. | whether scientific studies have been carried out into side effects, including long-term ones? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether scientific studies have been carried out into side effects, including long-term ones?

| 2. | whether it is aware of any undesirable effects of the vaccine? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it is aware of any undesirable effects of the vaccine?

| 3. | whether, in the light of the harmful effects that have been detected, it intends to review existing legislation on the matter, in particular Directive 2000/75/EC (1) and Commission decision 2001/783/ECO? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether, in the light of the harmful effects that have been detected, it intends to review existing legislation on the matter, in particular Directive 2000/75/EC (1) and Commission decision 2001/783/ECO?

| 4. | what financial instruments could be used to assist stock farmers (2)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

what financial instruments could be used to assist stock farmers (2)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The decision to use vaccination to combat the bluetongue epidemic in the Mediterranean region over recent years was not made without taking the necessary precautions.

The Scientific Committee was consulted, safety checks were carried out on the vaccines used, and the option of resorting to vaccination was chosen only after detailed consideration in close cooperation with the national authorities.

The vaccination campaigns achieved remarkable results where they were conducted so as to ensure sufficient vaccine cover of flocks in the affected areas.

Thus, the campaigns enabled rapid eradication of the disease on the Balearic islands and a spectacular reduction in the number of infection sources in regions such as Sardinia, which were particularly affected by the epidemic.

The results have been regularly passed on to the Commission by the Italian authorities and an exhaustive presentation was given at the Symposium held in October 2003 in Taormina at the instigation of the International Office of Epizootics (World Animal Health Organisation).

Although the Italian authorities noted undesirable effects of the vaccine, they were not sufficiently significant to outweigh the benefits derived from vaccination.

In addition, the measures — adopted by Decision 2001/783/EC — restricting movement of livestock from infected areas have been amended on several occasions. The last amendment by Decision 2004/34/EC (3) was designed to ease restrictions in view of the reduced levels of virus following vaccination.

Lastly, as regards the financial instrument enabling the Commission to provide compensation for the losses incurred by stock farmers whose flocks were affected by bluetongue, Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (4) has helped the Community to contribute significantly. The Community's contribution for the 2000 financial year, to date the latest one closed, was EUR 11 million.

Member States may also grant state aid to compensate the losses incurred by stock farmers as a result of animal diseases for which a prevention, control and eradication programme has been adopted at Community, national or regional level. In particular, under point 11.4 of the Guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector (5), support up to 100 % of the losses incurred may be granted to stock farmers affected. Such aid must be notified in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. Some Italian regions have notified aid schemes to compensate losses related to bluetongue.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 74.

(2)  OJ L 293, 10.11.2001 p. 42 .

(3)  2004/34/EC: Commission Decision of 6 January 2004 amending Decision 2003/828/EC with regard to the movements of vaccinated animals from protection zones (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 5306), OJ L 7, 13.1.2004.

(4)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(5)  OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/188

---

(2004/C 84 E/0228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/04

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Reported Spanish ban on motorcycles towing trailers

Can the Commission confirm that a ban exists in Spain against motorcycles towing trailers? Is such a ban legal under EU law, ‘inter alia’ on transport and free movement, and what action does the Commission propose to take, if this is indeed the case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the transposition into Spanish law in 1997 and 1998 of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (1) made possible the type-approval and registration in that Member State of two or three-wheel vehicles (motorcycles) with coupling devices for trailers or semitrailers. However, there continued to be a ban on motocycles towing a trailer the General Vehicles Regulation.

As the Commission considered that the total ban on using a motorcycle towing a trailer was likely to constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement, in 1998 it started infringement proceedings against Spain under Article 226 of the EC Treaty for infringement of Articles 18, 28 and 49 on the free movement of persons and goods and the freedom to provide services. This procedure is currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case C-l97/02).

The Spanish authorities very recently adopted Royal Decree No 1428/2003 of 21 November 2003 approving the General Road Traffic Regulation in implementation of the Law on road traffic, motor vehicles and road safety of 2 March 1990. This new General Road Traffic Regulation entered into force on 23 January 2004 and repealed the total ban on using a motorcycle towing a trailer in Spain.

The Commission emphasises that Article 12 of the new Regulation authorises motorcycles to tow trailers or sidecars only if they do not exceed 50 % of the weight of the towing vehicle. The use of these trailers is also subject to certain conditions: they must be used during daylight and in conditions that guarantee good visibility, the speed of the motorcycle must be reduced by 10 % compared with the speed limit, and these trailers may not in any circumstances be used to transport people.

Nevertheless, the General Vehicle Regulation, which is in the process of being amended, will also have to repeal this ban.

---

(1)  OJ L 226, 18.8.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/189 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/189

---

(2004/C 84 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Sewage treatment plants

In the sewage treatment sector, companies wishing to sell equipment to the Republic of Ireland require approval of their products by the Irish Board of Agreement. Would the Commission agree that the cost of obtaining such approval is a barrier to trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Honourable Member did not specify which type of sewage treatment equipment has to be approved by the Irish Board of Agreement. Therefore, it is difficult to assess whether the equipment falls within the scope of Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 relating to machinery (1) or within the scope of any other Community Directive ensuring the free movement of the relevant equipment. It is also difficult to assess whether the equipment is covered by Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 89/106/CEE of 21 December 1988, on construction products (2). If so, the approval scheme should be examined in the light of the relevant directive. Approval by the Irish Board of Agreement of products relating to pertinent requirements already regulated at Community level is not allowed.

If, however, such equipment would fall outside the scope of the relevant directive(s) or if the pertinent requirements are not regulated in the relevant directive(s), the requirement to submit these products for approval to the Irish Board of Agreement should be assessed in the light of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty. Article 28 of the EC Treaty prohibits measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative import restrictions, and covers all commercial rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade. However, these trade restrictions could be justified under Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under the mandatory requirements accepted by the Court of Justice, if these restrictions are necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives of public interest set out in Article 30 or accepted by the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

(2)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/189 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/189

---

(2004/C 84 E/0230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0263/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Safety at Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station

Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station is located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, some 200 km from Helsinki. The four reactors at the power station, which was built in 1973, are of the same RBMK type as the reactor involved in the Chernobyl disaster.

In 2003 the operating permit for the power station's oldest reactor expired. Russia's Nuclear Energy Ministry, Minatom, wanted the power station to be allowed to operate for another 15 years, no less. Apparently Russia's radiation safety authorities have granted the oldest reactor a five-year extension of its permit.

The Norwegian environmental organisation Bellona recently reported on safety problems and financial difficulties at Sosnovyi Bor. According to Bellona, the power station's spent nuclear fuel stores were full years ago, radioactive emissions into the Gulf of Finland are an everyday occurrence, embezzlement of funds and thefts of equipment have occurred at the power station, safety regulations have been systematically disregarded, and the plant's fire safety is poor. Bellona states that Finland's radiation safety authorities have played down the seriousness of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor. It has become more difficult to obtain reliable information about safety at Sosnovyi Bor as its management has prevented access to the region, using the threat of terrorism as a pretext.

Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station is a ticking time-bomb. A group of NGOs based in Russia and the Baltic region has accordingly launched a campaign in favour of the power station's closure.

Nuclear safety is one of the priorities in relations between the EU and Russia. What is the Commission's view of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor? What has the Commission done to eliminate the safety risks there? Have Tacis funds been allocated to Sosnovyi Bor? Has the issue of safety at Sosnovyi Bor been discussed as part of the EU-Russia energy dialogue? Has the Commission, at Parliament's request, explored the possibilities of setting up an international environmental and nuclear non-proliferation supervisory authority to coordinate assistance in dealing with radioactive waste and environmental problems caused by it in Russia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question No H-39/04 put by Mrs Aaltonen (1) at the February 2004 part-session.

---

(1)  Written answer of 10.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/190

---

(2004/C 84 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Consumer credit

In its various forms (personal loans, assigned credit, permanent credit, credit cards, etc.), consumer credit accounted in 2003 for more than EUR 510 billion, or 13 % of household consumption in the euro zone.

Since 1987, when it was established, the sector has expanded spectacularly; new types of services have given rise to increasingly diverse national laws, so that the legal framework needs to be brought up to date. In this context, the Commission's efforts to harmonise Member States' legal provisions are warmly to be welcomed.

However, although this type of credit can help to encourage consumption, it may also, if poorly managed, increase the indebtedness of many households which have fallen victim to the crisis and can thus even play a proactive role, contributing to the economic decline by holding back consumption at the wrong moment.

Inadequate protection of consumers in the Commission proposal caused the report to be rejected in plenary and to be referred back to committee because Parliament felt that it did not meet current needs.

In the face of such a barrage of criticism, is the Commission prepared to alter its position?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased with the Honourable Member's comment that the harmonisation measures taken in the area of consumer credit are to be welcomed. These measures are part of the Commission's policy in the area of consumer protection and are in line with its strategy for 2002-2006 (1).

With regard to the first point made by the Honourable Member, indebtedness is indeed a concern within the EU, and the Commission shares this concern. Although the proposal for a Directive is not primarily designed to tackle indebtedness, it contains provisions which may help to do so. It is intended to set high standards for consumer information before, during and after the conclusion of credit agreements, which will help the consumer to avoid indebtedness, and to lay down rules on awarding loans (for example, the obligation for the lender to make sure that the customer is solvent).

As for the Honourable Member's comment on the procedure in Parliament, the Commission is pleased that Parliament has confirmed in plenary that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market should proceed with a review of the proposal and deliver an opinion on it.

The Commission is pleased with the in-depth discussions under way in Parliament and is awaiting the debate and the vote in plenary, currently scheduled for the second part-session in March 2004. The Commission intends to submit an amended proposal as soon as Parliament has adopted its amendments at first reading.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 208 final — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/191 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/191

---

(2004/C 84 E/0232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme

The first round of contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6) is now fully under way. The negotiations are proving very difficult and the initial reports from project coordinators are unusually critical. During the negotiations, scientific officers are reportedly using rules different to those announced at the information meetings held when FP 6 was launched. The result is growing uncertainty regarding the purpose of the new instruments, uncertainty which was already considerable at the start. Many groups are now giving serious thought to ignoring FP 6 and concentrating exclusively on national programmes.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the problems emerging in connection with the first round of contract negotiations under FP 6? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the problems emerging in connection with the first round of contract negotiations under FP 6?

| 2. | Can the Commission state what rules governing the conclusion of contracts are now being employed and why these rules differ from those originally announced? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission state what rules governing the conclusion of contracts are now being employed and why these rules differ from those originally announced?

| 3. | Are the rules now being employed consistent with those agreed between the Council and Parliament and laid down in FP 6? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the rules now being employed consistent with those agreed between the Council and Parliament and laid down in FP 6?

| 4. | What steps has the Commission taken, or what steps does it plan to take, to deal with the problems outlined above? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps has the Commission taken, or what steps does it plan to take, to deal with the problems outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | It is true that in some cases there have been some misunderstandings about the nature and objectives of the new instruments established under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6). These have meant that certain expectations on the part of the participants in these projects (correct or incorrect) may not have been met in full when negotiating their projects with the Commission. For example, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Community financial contribution is provided in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Financial Regulation (1) and that the legal and financial interests of the Community are ensured when entering into contracts with third parties.
  However, it should also be said that guidance and information on the new instruments, as well as on the contractual aspects relating to the negotiation of projects have been provided both to potential contractors and to the Commission. Much of this information can be found either on the Cordis web site or on the model contract web site at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/indexen.html) |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is true that in some cases there have been some misunderstandings about the nature and objectives of the new instruments established under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6). These have meant that certain expectations on the part of the participants in these projects (correct or incorrect) may not have been met in full when negotiating their projects with the Commission. For example, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Community financial contribution is provided in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Financial Regulation (1) and that the legal and financial interests of the Community are ensured when entering into contracts with third parties.

However, it should also be said that guidance and information on the new instruments, as well as on the contractual aspects relating to the negotiation of projects have been provided both to potential contractors and to the Commission. Much of this information can be found either on the Cordis web site or on the model contract web site at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/indexen.html)

| 2. | The Rules for Participation, the model contract that is based on those Rules and the provisions of the Financial Regulation are all applied when negotiating contracts with successful consortia. These principles should not differ from any ‘originally announced’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Rules for Participation, the model contract that is based on those Rules and the provisions of the Financial Regulation are all applied when negotiating contracts with successful consortia. These principles should not differ from any ‘originally announced’.

| 3. | Yes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Yes.

| 4. | As mentioned in point 1 much information has been produced by the Commission to help and explain both to potential contractors and within the Commission the legal, financial and contractual aspects applicable to FP6. If there are specific cases of discrepancy between the Rules established and the practices carried out, these should be brought to the attention of those responsible within the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As mentioned in point 1 much information has been produced by the Commission to help and explain both to potential contractors and within the Commission the legal, financial and contractual aspects applicable to FP6. If there are specific cases of discrepancy between the Rules established and the practices carried out, these should be brought to the attention of those responsible within the Commission.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/192 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/192

---

(2004/C 84 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies

The engine manufacturers Wärtsilä are halting production of diesel engines at Turku in Finland and moving their operation to Trieste in Italy. In his reply to a parliamentary question from Theodoras Bouwman, MEP (P-3451/01) (1), Commissioner Monti said the Commission was looking into the possible misuse of state subsidies in connection with Wärtsilä's closure of its Zwolle plant. Now that we have a further instance of Wärtsilä closing a viable production unit in one country and moving its operations to another, suspicions are reinforced that the Italian state is supporting a former state-owned production unit on improper grounds. Can the (Italian) Commissioner responsible for competition tell me whether the investigations referred to in his answer to Mr Bouwman's question have been completed, what was the result of these investigations as regards possible distortions of competition, and whether Wärtsilä has received, or is receiving, unjustified aid from the Italian State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The investigations referred to in the Commission's reply to written question P-3451/01 by Mr Bouwman have been completed. The Italian authorities confirmed that, apart from the aid from the European Social Fund (ESF) as part of the 1997-1998 Single programming document (SPD) for vocational training, to which the reply to Mr Bouwman's written question already refers, no State aid had been granted to Wärtsilä and no agreement had been concluded with the company on its acquisition of the company Grandi Motori di Trieste.

---

(1)  OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 180.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/193

---

(2004/C 84 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Mislabelling of seal oil in the EU

Is the Commission aware of the fact that many Member States are currently placing on the EU market products containing oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals and that this oil is mislabelled as ‘marine oil’, ‘fish oil’ or ‘fat oil’?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that seal oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals is currently used by some EU industries in several commonly consumed products such as pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements for human use, pet food and animal feed using the above-mentioned misleading terms on their labels?

Given the existing stringent EU legislation on the labelling of products, in particular of nutritional supplements, as well as on consumer and health protection, is the Commission going to ensure that these products do not stay on the EU market with the current misleading label? Furthermore, given that many European citizens have ethical concerns about Canadian seal hunting, will the Commission ensure that this seal oil is labelled with the term ‘Canadian Seal oil’ in order to safeguard consumer choice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

General legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs (1) lays down labelling requirements in order to ensure that consumers have information on the objective characteristics of products, such as the name under which the product is sold, the ingredients, the quantity or durability.

With regard to the designation of ingredients on labels, Directive 2000/13/EC provides that ingredients must be referred to by their specific name. Refined oils, however, may be included in the list of ingredients under the category name ‘oil’, followed either by an indication of the type, i.e. ‘vegetable’ or ‘animal’, or by an indication of the specific animal or vegetable origin.

In line with these provisions, the ingredient ‘seal oil’ must be referred to by the terms ‘animal oil’ or ‘seal oil’.

The designations mentioned by the Honourable Member therefore do not comply with these provisions, and it is up to the national monitoring authorities to take measures to rectify the situation. Member States have in any case been reminded of these points.

Allowing for exceptions, it is compulsory to indicate the origin or provenance of foodstuffs only where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000 Directive last amended by Directive 2003/89/EC, OJ L 301, 25.11.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/194

---

(2004/C 84 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0294/04

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Disclosure of the rate structure for the Central European Pipeline System

Is the Commission aware of the existence of the Central European Pipeline System (CEPS)? The system was built up by the NATO allies between 1950 and 1989, during the Cold War, in order to transport fuel during wartime. This military infrastructure is now being used on a commercial basis to cover a proportion of the maintenance costs. The rates charged by NATO are anything but transparent for the system's various customers, however. Does the Commission believe that the CEPS' maintenance costs ought to be disclosed and linked to a transparent transport rating structure? In the final analysis, this system is offering a service on the European internal transport market, and its rivals would willingly take a look at the rates applied on the European transport market by what is a transport system funded by public monies. Would the Commission be willing to make arrangements with NATO's logistics arm in the near future in order to establish a transparent system of rates? I myself would advocate a system of annual reporting of the CEPS' maintenance costs, with a minimum and a maximum rate to cover as large a proportion of them as possible. In addition, not all routes within the system are equally commercially attractive. Are the maintenance costs for those routes also charged for, however?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the existence of the NATO Pipeline System (NPS). It consists of nine separate military storage and distribution systems for fuels and lubricants. The largest of these networks, the Central European Pipeline System (CEPS) covers Belgium, Germany, France, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. The system links storage deposits, air bases, civil airports, pumping stations and entry points. It is designed to ensure that NATO's requirements for petroleum products and their distribution can be met at all times. According to NATO figures, CEPS represents some 2 to 3 % of petroleum products transported in these Member States.

The system serves primarily military purposes but is open in part to commercial transactions as well. The tariffs are published as in France or negotiated on a case by case basis under the supervision of a committee where all members of the system are represented.

There is no specific Community legislation regarding tariffs and third party access to oil pipelines. The Commission does, therefore, not intend to enter into negotiations with NATO as an international organisation in order to establish such rules for this specific case.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/194

---

(2004/C 84 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Age discrimination in the provision of goods and services

Employment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC (1) (due to have been transposed into Member State law, 2 December 2003) confirms that the European Union has committed itself to the fight against age discrimination in employment. However, the Commission has so far not attempted to deal with the issue of age discrimination beyond the area of employment.

Anecdotal evidence of older citizens being refused car insurance on the basis of their age highlights the need for anti-discrimination legislation in the field of goods and services provision. Does the Commission intend to propose age discrimination legislation in areas other than employment? If so, when, and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission does not intend, for the time being, to propose legislation on particular grounds of discrimination outside of the employment sphere. The Commission believes that such a proposal would be premature; given that the date of transposition of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, has so recently passed (December 2003), the impact of this Directive on the national legal systems will be considerable and there will be a need to take stock of developments in this regard.

However, the Commission does believe that there needs to be a wider reflection on the various instruments at Community level which aim to achieve equality in practice. In this regard, the Commission intends to launch a public consultation (Green Paper) in Spring 2004 on the Future Strategy to combat discrimination. This paper will take stock of progress made in EU anti-discrimination policy and will raise issues/questions regarding future policy development. It will also address the new challenges posed by the enlargement of the EU and will help to map out the way ahead for EU action on equality over the next five years or more.

In addition, in 2006 the Commission will present to the Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of the 2000/78/EC Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/195

---

(2004/C 84 E/0237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Compact disc pricing in the EU

It has come to my attention that compact discs ordered for delivery in the UK and Ireland will incur a surcharge as companies will only be able to deliver compact discs manufactured within the EU, thus increasing the production costs.

Could the Commission confirm that all compact discs sold and delivered in the UK and Ireland will have to be manufactured in Europe? If so, what are the regulations governing this change in law?

If this is true, does the Commission agree it is against EU competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of any provision that would require that all compact discs sold and delivered in the United Kingdom and Ireland would have to be manufactured in Europe. More information is needed to take a position on the applicability of the Community competition rules.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/196 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/196

---

(2004/C 84 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0303/04

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Booking tickets for travel in another country

Is the Commission aware that it is often impossible to book a ticket in one EU Member State for a journey that originates in a country other than where the tickets are booked? For example, Air France will not allow a citizen to book a ticket for a journey from Strasbourg to London and for the ticket to be delivered to the UK. The ticket can only be delivered to an address in France.

It is often difficult to purchase flight tickets in Belgium with a UK credit card. With many online services, one can not purchase a ticket with a credit card that has not been issued in the country from where the journey starts.

Is the Commission able to confirm that these difficulties are not in breach of the principles of free movement that the EU strives for?

If the Commission finds that there is a breach, can it outline what is being done to combat this and to ensure that such discriminatory practice does not continue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

It has been reported to the Commission that certain distribution channels refuse to sell airline tickets to people resident in other Member States. In such cases, it is always possible for the resident of the other Member State to purchase a ticket, but only through a different distribution channel and at a different price, often higher. This problem is particularly evident when sales are made via the Internet.

As a follow-up to information received, at the end of 2003 the Commission forwarded a series of letters to 18 European airlines asking them for clarification on these practices. Replies are expected in March 2004. The Commission will then analyse the information received with a view to taking appropriate steps if need be.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/196 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/196

---

(2004/C 84 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/04

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Prison guards

Various press reports and reports from the department concerned have highlighted the difficulties currently facing the Italian prison guards' service.

In accordance with staffing provisions laid down by former Minister Fassino (Ministerial Decree of 8 February 2001) this service is currently estimated to comprise 45 000 men and women in more than 200 prison establishments in Italy, including 12 in Puglia, with a total staff of 2 850 officers, which means 500 fewer than requirements for a prison population of 3 800, of whom many are terrorists, or members of the Mafia or other organised crime networks.

Despite this precarious situation, the Minister of Justice, Roberto Castelli, has decided, as part of new personnel plans, to transfer some 300 units provisionally from the south to the north of Italy, including 77 officers from Puglia, without even providing for mission expenses, other than a tiny allowance of EUR 12 per day.

It is well known that international organised crime and the activities of Albanian mafia groups are constantly increasing in the south of Italy. This transfer of prison personnel has therefore given rise to serious concern, which has been voiced by the OSAPP trade union.

In view of the above, does the Commission intend to take action to ensure that this situation does not adversely affect the internal security of prisons in Italy, law and order, and the quality of life of prison personnel and their families?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The transfer of prison personnel within Italy, to which the Honourable Member refers, must be considered as a question regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security in Italy. The Commission can not intervene in this matter, as it is the Member States themselves, which, pursuant to Article 3 3 of the Treaty on European Union, are responsible for what action should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security. The transfer of prison personnel within Italy is, therefore, not a question of police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the framework of the Treaty on European Union.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/197

---

(2004/C 84 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Language programme for minority languages

In July 2003 the Commission published a call for proposals (DG EAC/45/03) to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (1).

One of the goals explicitly referred to in the call for proposals was to prepare information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages. Following the closing date for the submission of project proposals at the end of September, seven of the 33 project proposals submitted were approved.

Does the Commission believe that the selection of projects corresponds to the goals of the Action Plan?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In answer to the Honourable Member's question, which refers to the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity, the Commission would like to announce that, under Call for proposals EAC/45/03, the best seven projects were selected in accordance with the two objectives in point 2:

| 1. | to disseminate information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

to disseminate information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages, and

| 2. | to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission takes the view that the projects selected meet the objectives of the Action Plan and will help to prepare the ground for its implementation. As it specified in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-4031/03 (2), three of the seven projects are directly concerned with regional and minority languages.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 31.7.2003, p. 34.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 681.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/198 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/198

---

(2004/C 84 E/0241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   European voluntary and solidarity service

It is widely known that compulsory military service is gradually being abolished in the various European countries. Unfortunately, as part of these rationalisation measures certain states are also beginning to abolish the associated civilian service. The latter provides many aid organisations with a temporary increase in staff, and it is thus a great source of help in their many day-to-day activities.

It would therefore be useful to provide both young men and women throughout the EU with basic training lasting three to four months in first aid, social work and environmental services, so that they would be prepared for any situation and ready to act in emergencies.

Commissioner Reding has already commented on this issue in a joint debate with the Culture and Youth Committee of the European Parliament held on 2 December 2003, when she promised that part of the next programme for young people would focus on voluntary service.

Can the Commission confirm these future plans? What further steps does it plan to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission firmly believes that participation in voluntary activities, and particularly in organised national or international voluntary services, can be an extremely important non-formal learning experience for young people and is one that promotes their active involvement in society. Its value in terms of social cohesion is also beyond question.

In recognition of this, the Commission is continuing to support the European Voluntary Service, set up in 1996 and now Action 2 of the EU Youth Programme (2000-2006), and is endeavouring to extend and improve it. The interim evaluation of the EU Youth Programme, which is about to be published, is a demonstration of the extent of the interest generated by the European Voluntary Service.

The European Voluntary Service (EVS) gives young people aged 18 to 25 the opportunity to work abroad for up to 12 months in local projects in a wide variety of areas. Training events and educational support are an integral part of the EVS. In 2004 the EVS had a budget of EUR 33 million, which allowed 4 000 young people to participate. Geographically, the Youth Programme covered 30 European countries plus some third country regions.

As announced on 2 December 2003 by the Member of the Commission responsible for Education and Culture, the intention is also to make the European Voluntary Service an established component of the new generation of programmes starting in 2007. It is in the Community's interest to add new, more collective aspects to the EVS, which is currently very individual in nature, in order to continue increasing its effectiveness and visibility. The corresponding proposal to introduce a legal basis is likely to be submitted in 2004, and the Commission is intending to adopt a communication in March 2004 on the new programmes in the areas of youth, culture and audiovisual policy.

In conclusion, it could be added that in its White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’, the Commission regards voluntary activities for young people as a priority, and it is currently drawing up proposals in this area for common objectives for all Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/199

---

(2004/C 84 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/04

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Pork by-products

Is it correct that the EU plans to ban the sale of all pork by-products unless cooked? Is the Commission aware that raw pork products contain digestive enzymes which provide relief to enzyme-deficient animals who might otherwise suffer? What assurances can the Commission give that raw pork products will be available for animal consumption for medicinal purposes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1) requires that any protein, except some such as milk or colostrum, is heat treated before being given to farm animals.

Furthermore, Article 22 of the same Regulation prohibits intra-species recycling. In accordance with this prohibition, the feeding of processed animal proteins derived from one species to animals of the same species, including the case of pigs, is banned.

However, without prejudice of the above mentioned Regulation, enzymes and micro-organisms may be authorized in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedstuffs (2).

The purpose of these rules is to minimize the risk to public and animal health from material derived from animals.

---

(1)  OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2)  OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/199

---

(2004/C 84 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0338/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Food safety

Is it true that the EFSA has approved the use of GM corn (NK603)? Did the ESFA conduct new and impartial investigations into the safety of the food? How much, if any, of the information necessary for a safety evaluation was provided by companies with a vested interest in the product?

How can the ESFA give assurances on the safety of food if it relies upon the experiments conducted by companies with a vested interest in the product?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

At the request of the Commission, the European Food Security Authority (EFSA), an independent risk assessment body, issued a scientific opinion on the genetically modified (GM) NK 603 maize where it concluded that it is as safe as conventional maize and, therefore, that its import for processing for food and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health. Approval of the maize is the responsibility of the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) and to Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (2).

The Regulation provides that the applicant submits the necessary information to carry out the safety evaluation. This is a standard approach to product authorisation. In preparing its opinion of 25 November 2003 (3), the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms which is composed of highly qualified independent experts had, in addition to the documentation provided by the applicant, access to independent, peer-reviewed studies which were taken into account in reaching its conclusion and which are referenced in the opinion.

---

(1)  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3)  http://www.efsa.eu.int/pdf/gmo/opinion_gmo_02_final_en.pdf

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/200 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/200

---

(2004/C 84 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0340/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the European Community

On 4 December 2002 question P-3549/02 (1) brought to the Commission's attention the case of Mr Claude Marie Jenacolas, a French citizen and professional journalist, who was denied the opportunity of acting as editor-in-chief of a number of magazines in Italy on the basis of Italian legislation concerning the work of professional journalists.

The questioner asked the Commission whether it did not consider that Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 (the Italian law establishing the professional register of journalists) was incompatible with Article 39 of the EC Treaty, which provides for the free movement of workers within the Community.

On 9 April 2003 the Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou, after a provisional preliminary answer, gave a supplementary answer saying that she had asked the Italian authorities for clarification of how the legislation in question works and — more importantly — that the case had been registered as a suspected infringement of Community law.

In view of the time which has elapsed since then, can the Commission say what further action it has taken on this suspected infringement of Community law?

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Under the procedure for dealing with an assumed contravention of Community law (No 2003/2004), the Commission has written to the Italian authorities on several occasions asking how this Italian legislation works, in particular with regard to the obligation for journalists to be entered on occupational registers and the conditions for this, in particular for journalists from other Member States.

However, no reply has yet been received from the Italian authorities, so a final letter will be sent shortly.

---

(1)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 122.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/201 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/201

---

(2004/C 84 E/0245)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Restrictions on the opening up of the Belgian railways market

According to reports, the national railway company of Belgium, Belgian Railways, is enabling train drivers to change to another railway company that operates trains in Belgium. The driver's licence is not immediately transferred to the new employer, with the result that it loses its validity and the driver has to take another examination. On the other hand, Belgian railway legislation apparently does not allow the establishment and recognition of firms which are not themselves railway operators, but supply railway staff with a safety function (train drivers, shunters, guards) to other railway companies.

Is the Commission aware of these restrictions on the opening up of the market, and does it consider them to be compatible with European legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of these restrictions, which vary from country to country depending on the national legislation in force. In some cases, they could be in breach of current Community legislation and the regulatory body provided for in the first railway package (1) — in particular Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC, which should have been transposed into national law by all the Member States by 15 March 2003 — is responsible for intervening in the event of a complaint.

More generally, the second railway package (2) deals with the issue of driver certification, specifically in the Directive on rail safety for which the Honourable Member is rapporteur. However, the creation of a Community framework for driver certification goes beyond safety issues; other areas such as interoperability, the right to work, the mobility of workers between undertakings, as well as recognition of training and work experience must also be dealt with. In view of this complexity — highlighted during the debate on the second package — and in accordance with the indication given at the time of the Council's political agreement in March 2003, the Commission has drawn up a framework Directive for the certification of train drivers and all staff involved in crucial tasks relating to rail safety. This proposal, which is part of the third package (3), will be presented to the Parliament and the Council during the first half of 2004.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001. Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EEC on the licensing of railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001. Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/rail/package/new_fr.htm

(3)  Proposals from the third package due in the first half of 2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/202

---

(2004/C 84 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0359/04

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Impact of lack of health care standards on free movement of labour and citizens

In the EU region there are no uniform standards for the care required by patients in particular conditions (e.g. those in intensive care or those recuperating in hospital after a hip prosthesis operation) or for the correct minimum ratio of various categories of staff to patients, which is an essential element in the satisfactory provision of such care. Naturally, patients must have the right to be able to trust that their health will not under any circumstances be endangered when undergoing medical treatment anywhere within the EU. It is equally vital for those working in health services themselves to know that it will be reasonably possible for them to bear the considerable responsibility associated with their work.

This issue is closely bound up with the freedom of movement of labour and citizens: from the point of view of EU citizens' safety it is important that they should be able to obtain proper care wherever they travel within the EU, should they require it. Similarly, in the interests of labour mobility, it is necessary to be sure in advance that, for example, if a nurse takes a job as a nurse in another Member State, he/she will not be compelled to take on the responsibilities of a doctor or, when doing any job, to do more work than is humanly possible. An analogy with EU rules on health and safety at work with reference to transport safety, for instance, is not difficult to find. Moreover, compliance with this requirement should be readily achievable in a field where recognition of professional competence is governed by EU directives.

Is the Commission aware of the discrepancies which exist, both between EU Member States and within them, in standards concerning care workers and directly relating to the safety of patients and to health and safety at work? How does the Commission view the situation from the point of view of attaining free movement of citizens and of labour?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Minimum standards for the professional qualifications for health professionals are determined by the following Sectoral Directives: 93/16/EEC (1) (Doctors); 77/453/EEC (2) (Nurses); 78/686/EEC (3) (Dentists); 80/155/EEC (4) (Midwives) and 85/432/EEC (5) (Pharmacists).

There are, nevertheless, significant variations in practices and outcomes with regard to healthcare provision throughout the Union. Although Member States are responsible for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, these variations show that there is scope for exchanges of best practice at European level to bring practical benefits to patients and health professionals across the Union. The high level process of reflection on patient mobility and healthcare developments across the European Union convened by the Commission and bringing together health ministers and other key health sector stakeholders made recommendations in a range of areas that would improve this situation, including exploring networking and cooperation on European centres of reference, strengthening health technology assessment, developing a framework for health information at EU level, and analysing Community activities in general to see how these can better contribute to access and quality in healthcare. The Commission plans to set out proposals responding to these recommendations through a communication this Spring 2004.

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(2)  Council Directive 77/453/EEC of 27 June 1977 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in respect of the activities of nurses responsible for general care, OJ L 176, 15.7.1977.

(3)  Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, OJ L 233, 24.8.1978.

(4)  Council Directive 80/155/EEC of 21 January 1980 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to the taking up and pursuit of the activities of midwives, OJ L 33, 11.2.1980.

(5)  Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, OJ L 253, 24.9.1985.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/203 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/203

---

(2004/C 84 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Shoppers' rights in Ireland under EU law

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion it sent to Ireland in January 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/3, regarding the transposition in Ireland of the Guarantees Directive (Dir 1999/44/EC (1)), which sets out certain minimum legal rights for consumers buying goods in the EU?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering taking in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

On 19 December 2002, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland over the failure to implement Directive 1999/44/EC (2).

In response to this reasoned opinion, the Irish Government notified the Commission of the ‘European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003 — (S.I. No 11 of 2003)’ on 10 February 2003, thereby implementing the Guarantees Directive.

As a consequence, the Commission closed this infringement procedure against Ireland on 9 July 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

(2)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJ L 171, 7.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/204 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/204

---

(2004/C 84 E/0248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors

Directive 2000/34/EC (1) on the extension of the 1993 Working Time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC (2)) was scheduled to be transposed by all Member States by 1 August 2003 (apart from the provisions relating to trainee doctors for which the transposition date is 1 August 2004).

How many workers in Ireland does the Commission estimate would be covered by this Directive if it were to be implemented in full by the Irish Government?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

In the ‘White Paper on sectors and activities excluded from the working time directive’ (3), the Commission estimated that all sectors and activities excluded from the scope of Directive 93/104/EC, including self-employment, represented 5,6 million jobs (around 4 % of total jobs in the EU), of which 3,5 million (about 2,5 % of total jobs) were in the road transport sector. This gives an indication of the numbers involved at EU level. The Commission does not have the breakdown of these figures by Member State.

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

(2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

(3)  COM(97) 334 final, paragraph 18.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/204 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/204

---

(2004/C 84 E/0249)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0376/04

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

Given that:

| — | the strategic objectives set by the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000 expressed the hope that by 2010 the Union would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

—

the strategic objectives set by the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000 expressed the hope that by 2010 the Union would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion;

| — | the Commission Green Paper (2001) on Corporate Social Responsibility confirmed Europe's interest in this field; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission Green Paper (2001) on Corporate Social Responsibility confirmed Europe's interest in this field;

| — | in its Communication of 2002 the Commission adopted a strategy aimed at creating a partnership for the development of a European framework to promote corporate social responsibility in order to safeguard jobs by strengthening competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

in its Communication of 2002 the Commission adopted a strategy aimed at creating a partnership for the development of a European framework to promote corporate social responsibility in order to safeguard jobs by strengthening competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental protection;

| — | the Commission has also stressed that CSR is an instrument that may assist the achievement of the objectives of the European Union's policies, promote development and improve global governance by incorporating existing policy instruments such as legislation and social dialogue; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission has also stressed that CSR is an instrument that may assist the achievement of the objectives of the European Union's policies, promote development and improve global governance by incorporating existing policy instruments such as legislation and social dialogue;

| — | the company Thyssen Krupp, which owns AST in Terni, had undertaken to turn Terni into the European centre of excellence for grain-oriented electrical steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

the company Thyssen Krupp, which owns AST in Terni, had undertaken to turn Terni into the European centre of excellence for grain-oriented electrical steel;

| — | the Terni plant is among the cheapest in Europe as regards product unit cost; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Terni plant is among the cheapest in Europe as regards product unit cost;

| — | there has been heavy public investment in the site, including Community Objective 2 and ESF funding (development of the local system, infrastructure and vocational training), from which AST has benefited directly or indirectly. |
| --- | --- |

—

there has been heavy public investment in the site, including Community Objective 2 and ESF funding (development of the local system, infrastructure and vocational training), from which AST has benefited directly or indirectly.

Can the Commission say, in view of the above, whether and how it intends to intervene to prevent the closure of AST's electrical steel department in Terni, Italy, which would entail the loss of 900 jobs in the area, as well as having adverse repercussions on the region, and whether it has a precise strategy for tackling the negative impact of industrial restructuring measures?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/205

---

(2004/C 84 E/0250)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0388/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Terni steelworks: closure of the Thyssen-Krupp plant

Thyssen-Krupp Electrical Steel, a German multinational producing electrical steel, has announced its decision to discontinue production at the AST plant in Terni.

The site, which currently also produces stainless steel, since it can split the cost of the melting apparatus with the electrical sector, was separated from the company about three years ago, after the privatisation of the State-owned company ILVA, which caused enormous job losses, reducing the workforce from 7 000 to 3 000.

This closure would now cause 900 workers to be laid off, including the company's own employees and others working in related industries, lost turnover of EUR 140 million and the loss of 90 000 tonnes of ‘grain-oriented’ electrical steel — a very high quality product — per year, the end of the largest industrial group in Terni and the whole region and the discontinuation of an industry which, by virtue of the workers' high level of professional skills, has a significant national strategic value.

The loss of some portions of the market, in some cases owing to obvious errors in commercial and production activities, led Thyssen-Krupp to take the decision — with the backing of the findings of a market survey which seem to be misleading — to transfer this branch of the business to France or Germany and to reject any possibility of selling the business, since this would encourage and provide production capacity for competition in Italy, a country which buys 60 % of all European electrical steel production and would in the future be obliged to obtain it from abroad.

In view of the serious consequences on both the job front and for the regional and national economy, the fact that Thyssen-Krupp's closedown of this activity in Italy may seriously upset the established equilibrium of competition on the European market, and in view of the high levei of excellence of this plant's steel production at European level,

can the Commission say:

| 1. | how the EU might intervene to safeguard the future of the workers in Terni and the region's economy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

how the EU might intervene to safeguard the future of the workers in Terni and the region's economy;

| 2. | whether the decision taken by Thyssen-Krupp is lawful within the meaning of European legal provisions concerning the social impact of industrial restructuring, including Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, Directive 2001/23/EC (2) on transfers of businesses, Directive 94/45/EC (3) and Directive 2002/14/EC (4) on informing and consulting employees; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the decision taken by Thyssen-Krupp is lawful within the meaning of European legal provisions concerning the social impact of industrial restructuring, including Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, Directive 2001/23/EC (2) on transfers of businesses, Directive 94/45/EC (3) and Directive 2002/14/EC (4) on informing and consulting employees;

| 3. | whether this action is also lawful within the meaning of competition law, in particular as regards concentrations between undertakings and the abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (5) and Article 82 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (C 85/76 and C 70/89)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this action is also lawful within the meaning of competition law, in particular as regards concentrations between undertakings and the abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (5) and Article 82 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (C 85/76 and C 70/89)?

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(4)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.

(5)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/206 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/206

---

(2004/C 84 E/0251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0445/04

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Crisis at the AST plant in Terni

The German group Thyssen-Krupp, the leading steel producer which owns the AST plant at Terni in Italy, recently announced the closure of the electrical steel department there.

This decision will affect at least 900 workers, including those in related industries. The closure seems totally unjustified and has aroused considerable dismay and prompted strong protest from the workers involved and the trade unions represented in the firm. The closure would entail the dismantling of a well-established industrial centre which is at the forefront of the industry because of its facilities, equipment and, above all, the highly skilled workforce, and would have significant social repercussions, since it contributes to a high level of employment in the area, especially among young people.

Can the Commission therefore:

| — | ascertain whether the decision was taken in accordance with the European directives safeguarding workers and whether, more specifically, it may constitute an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (1) of 12 December 2002 on State aid for employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

ascertain whether the decision was taken in accordance with the European directives safeguarding workers and whether, more specifically, it may constitute an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (1) of 12 December 2002 on State aid for employment;

| — | ascertain whether consultations were held in good time between management and workers' representatives, as stipulated in Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

ascertain whether consultations were held in good time between management and workers' representatives, as stipulated in Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC (2);

| — | state, finally, what steps it will take to safeguard the future of the 900 workers, since Italy continues to have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

—

state, finally, what steps it will take to safeguard the future of the 900 workers, since Italy continues to have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the European Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0376/04, P-0388/04 and P-0445/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission has no authority to prevent or defer the closure of a company or a part thereof. It falls to the social partners and other third parties to negotiate with the company a possible alternative. The Commission hopes, however, that it will be possible to find an acceptable solution in order to alleviate the important impact for the region affected by this restructuring.

With regard to possible use of the Structural Funds, the Commission can confirm that the Terni area is eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund. The regional authorities may therefore ask for funding, for example as part of the mid-term review of the Umbria SPD in 2004, for measures to redevelop the Terni region in order to address the impact of the company closure.

Similarly, as far as the intervention of the European Social Fund (ESF) is concerned, the Commission informs the Honourable Members that the Operational Programme for the Umbria Region has an ESF budget of over EUR 97 million, which accounts for 45 % of the total programme, the rest being supplied by national funds. The region of Umbria published on the 26th January 2003, an Interregional call for proposals for the Iron and Steel Sector: ‘Dispositions for Projects Submission — under the Regional Operational Programme Objective 3, 2000-2006’. The call is financed under Measures A2, A3 and D1 of the Regional Operational Programme objective 3.

The interventions, which have or are being funded, are aimed at:

| — | introduction/re-Introduction in the Labour Market of young people and adults under a preventive approach. (Measure A2, Funding EUR 350 000); |
| --- | --- |

—

introduction/re-Introduction in the Labour Market of young people and adults under a preventive approach. (Measure A2, Funding EUR 350 000);

| — | introduction/re-Introduction in the Labour Market of both men and women who were unemployed for more than six or twelve months (Measure A3, Funding EUR 350 000); |
| --- | --- |

—

introduction/re-Introduction in the Labour Market of both men and women who were unemployed for more than six or twelve months (Measure A3, Funding EUR 350 000);

| — | development of Life long learning, flexibility of the Labour Market and competitiveness in both public and private enterprises. (Measure Dl, Funding EUR 500 000). |
| --- | --- |

—

development of Life long learning, flexibility of the Labour Market and competitiveness in both public and private enterprises. (Measure Dl, Funding EUR 500 000).

Several Community Directives lay down procedures of information and of consultation of workers' representatives which can prove to be applicable in the event of closures of companies, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning collective redundancies, and Council Directive 94/45/EC, of 22 September 1994, concerning the European Works Councils. Another directive was also adopted on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council with the aim of supplementing the Community mechanism on the matter (Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework relating to information and consultation of workers in the EC). The first two Directives were transposed in the national laws of the Member States (the third having to be transposed only by 23 March 2005). It is up to the competent national authorities (notably courts) to appreciate their correct and effective application in each case.

It is important to keep in mind that the Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies stipulates that, when an employer envisages collective redundancies, it is required to carry out, in good time, consultations with the workers' representatives with a view to reaching an agreement. These consultations cover at least the possibilities of avoiding or of reducing collective redundancies as well as the possibilities of alleviating their consequences by recourse to social accompanying measures aiming, at in particular, aid for redeployment and retraining of the redundant workers.

Because of the widespread concerns about restructuring and its social consequences the Commission has sought to widen and deepen the debate on the contribution that can be made at Community level to ensuring that restructuring is managed having due regard to its social consequences. In 2002, Commission adopted the first stage of consultation of the social partners: ‘Anticipating and managing change: a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring’. The paper advocated a positive approach to corporate restructuring balancing the interests of businesses faced with changes in the conditions governing their activity and those of employees threatened with the loss of their jobs.

In response to the paper, the social partners agreed to explore the possibilities of social dialogue on this issue and included it as a key element of their joint work programme adopted in November 2002. Following a number of seminars exploring practical experience on restructuring, the social partners submitted to the Commission in October 2003 a joint text: ‘Orientations for reference in managing change and its social consequences’. The Commission very much welcomes the fact that the social partners have indicated their intention to pursue work on topics relevant to this theme under their work programme for the period 2003-2005.

A number of other initiatives pursued by the Commission are also relevant to the issue of corporate restructuring:

| — | follow-up to the Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility and the subsequent Communication of the Commission (3). The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility implies a continuous commitment by business to behave fairly and responsibly and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the work force and their families as well as of the local community and society at large, including in times of restructuring and in the anticipation of change; |
| --- | --- |

—

follow-up to the Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility and the subsequent Communication of the Commission (3). The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility implies a continuous commitment by business to behave fairly and responsibly and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the work force and their families as well as of the local community and society at large, including in times of restructuring and in the anticipation of change;

| — | the Communication from the Commission, ‘The European Social Dialogue, a force for innovation and change’ (4). In the Communication, the Commission underlines that attainment of the strategic goals set in Lisbon -full employment and reinforced social cohesion- depends, to a considerable extent, on the action taken by the social partners at all levels. European social dialogue is therefore seen as a key tool for ensuring the positive management of change, in order to reconcile the flexibility essential to businesses with the security needed by employees, particularly in the event of major restructuring; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication from the Commission, ‘The European Social Dialogue, a force for innovation and change’ (4). In the Communication, the Commission underlines that attainment of the strategic goals set in Lisbon -full employment and reinforced social cohesion- depends, to a considerable extent, on the action taken by the social partners at all levels. European social dialogue is therefore seen as a key tool for ensuring the positive management of change, in order to reconcile the flexibility essential to businesses with the security needed by employees, particularly in the event of major restructuring;

| — | a European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) has been established to provide accessible, reliable data and opportunities to exchange views, ideas and practice to bring about better understanding, anticipation and management of change. The EMCC's objective is to provide the tools for key actors in European social policy to make more informed decisions about managing the processes of change. |
| --- | --- |

—

a European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) has been established to provide accessible, reliable data and opportunities to exchange views, ideas and practice to bring about better understanding, anticipation and management of change. The EMCC's objective is to provide the tools for key actors in European social policy to make more informed decisions about managing the processes of change.

As regards the verification of a violation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (5), the Commission does not have information that any aid has been granted to Acciai Speciali Terni under this Regulation.

From the elements of information submitted by the Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that there has been a violation of the Community competition rules, in particular, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (6) and Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(3)  COM(2002) 347 final.

(4)  COM(2002) 341 final.

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment.

(6)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/208

---

(2004/C 84 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Operation of reception classes — second operational programme: ‘education and initial training’

In the second operational programme ‘Education and Initial Training’ in Greece, and in sub-programme 1, measure 1, action (a), entitled ‘support for the integration of children with special cultural and language characteristics into the educational system’ there is provision for the improvement of the integration into the educational system of pupils from population groups which are at risk of educational inequality, with the aim of preventing their marginalisation.

The reception classes in compulsory education are funded by the above action and contribute to the problem-free integration of immigrant pupils into the education system. In the last school year, 2003-2004, the Ministry of Education and the Regional Education Administration did not take on the staff required for the operation of the reception classes and, in many cases where there were staff, suspended the operation of the reception classes to enable the teachers to cover for the vacant posts for teachers employed by the State teaching the normal classes. Thus, according to information supplied by the Ministry of Education to the Children's Advocate, of the 558 reception classes only 295 operated. At the same time, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued an edict prohibiting the enrolment in primary school of the children of immigrants who do not have a residence permit. The results of these actions is that the children of immigrants are deprived of one of the basic rights of children, that of education.

| 1. | What progress has been made in this action under the second operational programme, ‘education and initial training’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What progress has been made in this action under the second operational programme, ‘education and initial training’?

| 2. | In view of Article II-14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what steps will the Commission take to protect the right of immigrants' children to education? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of Article II-14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what steps will the Commission take to protect the right of immigrants' children to education?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, action one of measure 1.1 under the Operational Programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ is indeed contributing to ‘supporting the inclusion of children with cultural or linguistic particularities into the education system’.

The above-mentioned Operational Programme does not finance classes or staff recruitment but funds educational and technical material, training of teachers, counselling of families and awareness-raising amongst national and local education administrations.

A budget of EUR 57,7 million is allocated to this action, of which EUR 30 million is already under implementation. Up to now these actions have benefited: 2 300 children of immigrants in first level and 2 700 in second level education, 6 260 Muslim pupils, mainly in first level education; 6 780 Roma pupils in first and 120 in second level education.

The Commission is not aware that children of immigrants who do not have a residence permit have been refused enrolment in primary schools. According to the information at the Commission's disposal, law 2910/2001 provides that access to compulsory education is also exceptionally granted to these children. However, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to obtain further information on the Home Affairs Ministry's Decree.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/209

---

(2004/C 84 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Postage rates

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the postage rules for letters sent between Member States — and in particular the ‘E’ stamp — are comparable, allowing for exchange rate variations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

In the question, the Honourable Member raises the question of the comparability of postage rates for cross border mail and in particular the ‘E’ stamp.

The Community framework for postal services is set by the Postal Directive 97/67/EC (1), as amended by Directive 2002/39 (2). This Directive provided for a harmonised regulatory framework based on general principles leaving a significant margin of manoeuvre for Member States in compliance with the Subsidiarity principle.

In terms of postal tariffs, these general principles are set in Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 97/67/CE.

Article 12 sets general principles that the tariffs for universal services should be affordable, geared to costs, transparent and non discriminatory. Furthermore, Article 13 requires that, in setting terminal dues for intra Community cross-border mail, the Member States shall encourage their universal service providers to respect the following principles — that terminal dues be fixed in relation to the costs of processing and delivering in-coming cross border mail — that levels of remuneration be related to the quality of service achieved and that terminal dues be transparent and non-discriminatory.

The above principles apply to all universal service tariffs including those collected through electronic stamps.

In practical terms, however, as there may be differences in the costs of delivery in the Member States, there may be differences between cross border tariffs and terminal dues, (and, therefore the price of electronic stamps for cross border services), even where they are geared to costs.

Finally, in terms of the actual organisation of the collection of tariffs, such as the E Stamp, Article 8 of the said Directive states that Member States have the right to organise the issue of postage stamps in accordance with their national legislation.

---

(1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2)  Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/210 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/210

---

(2004/C 84 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Animal By-Products Regulation

The above regulation has recently been implemented within Scotland resulting in numerous interpretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation, its enactment in Scotland is causing concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges, which will ultimately force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation, envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003 (2), lays down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. It was adopted on 3 October 2002, published on 10 October 2002 and applied from 1 May 2003.

The Regulation covers small businesses as far as the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal, importation, export and transit of animal by-products are concerned to prevent these products from presenting a risk to animal or public health. There is no cut-off point foreseen where small businesses would fall out of the scope of the Regulation, and Member States cannot derogate from its provisions.

A fundamental revision of the Community rules applicable to animal by-products was necessary in the light of the recent feed-borne crises (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin, foot and mouth disease, etc.) and the wide variety of approaches that existed in Member States as regards the financial support for processing, collection, storage and disposal of animal by-products.

On the basis of Article 35 of the Regulation in relation to national provisions, Member States have been asked to communicate to the Commission the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Regulation, and any difficulties they face. The Commission shall submit, before the end of 2004, a report to the Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals taking into account the difficulties raised by Member States.

If, therefore, particular problems have arisen for smaller operators, it would be expected that Member States' responses to Article 35 would put the Commission in a position to recommend responses to those problems by the end of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2)  OJ L 117, 13.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/211 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/211

---

(2004/C 84 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0514/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Follow-up question to Written Question E-2133/02 on discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age

On 17 July 2003, I submitted a written question (E-2133/02 (1)) on discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age. The Commission indicated in its reply that ‘a blanket age limit’ is not ‘a guide to physical fitness or ability’ and that, ‘where a certain level of physical fitness is required to carry out a particular job, appropriate tests may be used in the selection of candidates’. The Commission also stated that Directive 2000/78/EC (2) must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003, except where an additional period of up to three years is requested. It was recently reported in the press that the well-known Italian referee P. Collina will have to stop refereeing when he turns 45, as the rules prohibit him from carrying on beyond that age. It would appear from this that UEFA has not amended its rules on this point (FIFA Article 4).

| 1. | Does the Commission take the view that the fact that the Italian referee Collina has to stop exercising his profession because he is 45, even though he passes the relevant physical tests, is in breach of the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission take the view that the fact that the Italian referee Collina has to stop exercising his profession because he is 45, even though he passes the relevant physical tests, is in breach of the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC?

| 2. | If so, what steps will the Commission take against FIFA, one of whose rules contravenes the provisions of this Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what steps will the Commission take against FIFA, one of whose rules contravenes the provisions of this Directive?

| 3. | What action will the Commission take against Member States that allow their citizens to work for organisations that include provisions in their contracts contravening European, and therefore also national, law in Italy, given that Italy did not request an additional period for the transposition of the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What action will the Commission take against Member States that allow their citizens to work for organisations that include provisions in their contracts contravening European, and therefore also national, law in Italy, given that Italy did not request an additional period for the transposition of the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission recalls that Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of, ‘inter alia’, age must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. In addition, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Germany, Belgium, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden have informed the Commission that they will use this additional three years, and Denmark one extra year.

Italy has transposed Directive 2000/78/EC by Decree No 216 of 13 August 2003, which entered into force on 28 August 2003. As Italy has transposed the Directive, individual complaints of discrimination should be taken under national law before the national courts.

The Commission also recalls that Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. The setting of fixed age limits could only be used where they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.

The Commission is unable to give an opinion on this individual case given that there is no information provided by the Honourable Member regarding the arguments used by the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) to justify the establishment of such an age limit.

Furthermore, the Commission wants to underline the fact that, under the EC Treaty, the Commission can only take action against a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 32.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/212 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/212

---

(2004/C 84 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption

The above-mentioned Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 has recently been implemented within Scotland, resulting in numerous interpretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation, its enactment in Scotland is causing concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges which will ultimately force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation, envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0393/04 (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.

(2)  See page 210.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/213 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/213

---

(2004/C 84 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/03

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   AIDS in eastern Europe

At the end of 2001 one million adults and children in Eastern Europe had been diagnosed with AIDS. This area, along with Central Asia, has the highest growth rate in the world. In one year alone, the rate of infection in the region rose by 42 % and shows no sign of slowing down. A number of factors are contributing to this scenario: a growing but unstable economy, with a high rate of unemployment, the liberalisation of social and cultural norms and inadequate public health services.

These factors are creating a series of problems which are playing a major role in the growth of the epidemic:

| — | The number of young people leaving school is very high. The lack of jobs is increasing the risk of young people joining vulnerable groups, such as drug addicts, or turning to prostitution. |
| --- | --- |

—

The number of young people leaving school is very high. The lack of jobs is increasing the risk of young people joining vulnerable groups, such as drug addicts, or turning to prostitution.

| — | Trafficking in human beings and the sex trade have increased since the fall of the Berlin Wall, as has drug use among young people. |
| --- | --- |

—

Trafficking in human beings and the sex trade have increased since the fall of the Berlin Wall, as has drug use among young people.

| — | Lack of information about sexuality and reproductive health is leading to a total unawareness of the risk of infection: sex education programmes are required to inform the public about sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. In addition, the political authorities should be urged to take steps to remove discrimination against people infected with the virus, by incorporating AIDS prevention programmes into their sexuality and reproductive health programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of information about sexuality and reproductive health is leading to a total unawareness of the risk of infection: sex education programmes are required to inform the public about sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. In addition, the political authorities should be urged to take steps to remove discrimination against people infected with the virus, by incorporating AIDS prevention programmes into their sexuality and reproductive health programmes.

The national governments of this region often lack the financial resources and expertise required to introduce prevention programmes. A great deal of assistance is required in this context.

How does the Commission intend to develop specific policies to give greater importance to AIDS prevention in the countries of Eastern Europe?

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to help national governments in this region to launch programmes to prevent and fight AIDS?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The Commission's concern has been highlighted in a number of policy documents, notably the 2002-2006 Country Strategy papers. The Tacis Indicative programmes for 2002-2003 and 2004-2006 identify measures the Commission intends to undertake to assist the partner governments to prevent and fight HIV/AIDS.

Prevention and control of HIV/AIDS is a particularly high priority in our cooperation with Ukraine and Russia, including Kaliningrad. In Ukraine, a joint Union-United States HIV/AID S prevention and awareness programme has been under implementation since December 2000 and will be followed up in 2003 by a new project in HIV/AIDS prevention among youth. In Russia, a new HIV/AIDS prevention and combating project will be financed from the 2002 Tacis national programme. It will support a comprehensive public awareness and information campaign targeted at the population at large, with specific attention paid to so-called ‘bridge population’ which contributes to the spread of HIV/AIDS from the risk groups to the general population. In addition, a separate HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis prevention project is being launched in Kaliningrad. In the other countries of the region, health and social sector projects normally comprise components addressing HIV/AIDS. Because of the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS problem, the Commission projects are closely coordinated with the activities of other donors, in particular the United Nations Global Fund to Fight AIDS and World Bank financed AIDS programmes. In addition to these large-scale projects, the Commission co-finances smaller projects in the health and social sectors, implemented by European and local non-governmental organisations.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/214

---

(2004/C 84 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2374/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission

In view of the recent OLAF investigation into the alleged misappropriation of about EUR 900 000 by senior Eurostat staff, the fact that the Commission has launched a reform of the accounting system, which is deemed to be inadequate, and that Eurostat subcontracted services to Eurogramme, Eurocost and Planistat, can the Commission specify what services have been contracted out and subcontracted in the last five years, how much they cost, and what the mechanisms for allocating contracts and selecting successful contractors are?

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

| 1. | The OLAF investigations are into an allegation that Eurostat was keeping accounts outside the official accounting system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The OLAF investigations are into an allegation that Eurostat was keeping accounts outside the official accounting system.

| 2. | The reform of the accounting system — in line with the new Financial Regulation — is proceeding according to schedule. It has the full support of the ECA and will put the Commission at the forefront of modern public-sector accounting practices. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The reform of the accounting system — in line with the new Financial Regulation — is proceeding according to schedule. It has the full support of the ECA and will put the Commission at the forefront of modern public-sector accounting practices.

| 3. | The contracting-out of services is dealt with in the Financial Regulation. The IAS has looked into the contracts. As regards the number of contracts, the Commission would refer to Written Questions P-3457/02 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1), P-l 705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-l 724/03 by Mr Blak (3), P-l 807/03 by Mr Bösch (2), P-1890/03 by Mr Heaton-Harris (4), P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner (2) and P-2453/03 by Mr Meijer (5) and information sent direct to Parliament in 2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The contracting-out of services is dealt with in the Financial Regulation. The IAS has looked into the contracts. As regards the number of contracts, the Commission would refer to Written Questions P-3457/02 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1), P-l 705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-l 724/03 by Mr Blak (3), P-l 807/03 by Mr Bösch (2), P-1890/03 by Mr Heaton-Harris (4), P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner (2) and P-2453/03 by Mr Meijer (5) and information sent direct to Parliament in 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 58.

(3)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 89.

(4)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 153.

(5)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 156.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/214

---

(2004/C 84 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: alteration of the Commission's position on recognising and tackling fraud and consequences for independent investigation by OLAF

| 1. | Why has the Commission hitherto adopted the position, with regard to Eurostat's contacts with dubious businesses and concealed accounts, that it could not do anything or make any substantive statement until the findings of the OLAF investigation were published, which is due to happen shortly, and why did it stress in its reply of 3 June 2003 to my question H-0343/03 (1) that in principle everyone is deemed innocent until they have been proved guilty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why has the Commission hitherto adopted the position, with regard to Eurostat's contacts with dubious businesses and concealed accounts, that it could not do anything or make any substantive statement until the findings of the OLAF investigation were published, which is due to happen shortly, and why did it stress in its reply of 3 June 2003 to my question H-0343/03 (1) that in principle everyone is deemed innocent until they have been proved guilty?

| 2. | Why has the Commission now decided, before OLAF's findings are published, already nonetheless to refer the case to the Internal Audit Service with effect from 7 July 2003? Why did the Commission at that particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of records? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why has the Commission now decided, before OLAF's findings are published, already nonetheless to refer the case to the Internal Audit Service with effect from 7 July 2003? Why did the Commission at that particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of records?

| 3. | Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission's conduct to date and the recent radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the various stages? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission's conduct to date and the recent radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the various stages?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly said that it is anxious to respect the full independence of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to avoid encroaching on inquiries in progress by prejudging the outcome. But this does not mean that any action at all on its part is ruled out.

On 11 June 2003, as part of its follow-up to the 2001 discharge and at the request of Parliament, the Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to carry out an examination of Eurostat contracts. On 7 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report from IAS and an analysis by the Directorate-General for Budget of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capacity of Eurostat. This latter analysis showed that at least during the 1990s there had been a number of serious infringements of the Financial Regulation, and that the action taken on several important aspects of the internal audit reports may not have shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness. The work of the IAS is still ongoing.

In addition, a special Task Force Eurostat (TFES) was set up to provide the Commission with the information necessary for it to take, where appropriate in several stages but in the short term, the management and organisational measures, especially of a preventive nature, that were needed in order to ensure that the Financial Regulation and the associated rules of good administrative practice were observed.

The Commission's reference to the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is self-explanatory in a Union founded on the rule of law. The reports and information in the Commission's possession do not prejudge the assessment of the individual responsibilities involved, which will be arrived at by the procedures established for the purpose. The Commission would also refer the honourable Member to its answer to question E-2515/03 by Mr Bösch (2).

Finally, in reply to the last part of the honourable Member's question, it is not for the Commission to speculate on the way in which Parliament may choose to exercise its prerogatives with regard to temporary committees of inquiry.

---

(1)  Written reply of 3 June 2003.

(2)  See page 30.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/215 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/215

---

(2004/C 84 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(7 August 2003)

Subject:   Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Knowing that:

| — | The OSCE member states have undertaken to respect freedom of thought, conscience and religion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The OSCE member states have undertaken to respect freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

| — | Despite these binding obligations stemming from OSCE membership, some of that organisation's member states are continuing to fine or imprison believers for peacefully practising their faith. Places of worship are being closed and sacred objects destroyed; religious publications are being censored, and the registration of religious communities is being made difficult or even impossible. |
| --- | --- |

—

Despite these binding obligations stemming from OSCE membership, some of that organisation's member states are continuing to fine or imprison believers for peacefully practising their faith. Places of worship are being closed and sacred objects destroyed; religious publications are being censored, and the registration of religious communities is being made difficult or even impossible.

| — | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in particularly serious and constant breach of their binding and fundamental commitment to ensure freedom of thought, conscience and religion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in particularly serious and constant breach of their binding and fundamental commitment to ensure freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Under OSCE rules, decisions are taken by the member states on the basis of consensus. The EU Member States are all also OSCE members, and the Union cooperates with the OSCE.

Despite these attacks on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion by third countries with which the EU has agreements, the Commission has in no case taken any action to suspend or threaten to suspend the agreements, even though it has openly recognised that fundamental human rights, and notably the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, are being violated in the countries concerned.

Can the Council as such, as well as the individual Member States which form it, state whether the intention exists to call for compliance with the OSCE rules and treaties and denounce the serious and persistent breaches of fundamental human rights, notably the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the EU Member States have endorsed the provisions of Chapter VII of the Helsinki Final Act signed in 1975 which determines the conditions for respect for human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. The principles contained therein have regularly been reaffirmed by the OSCE in successive declarations, in particular the Madrid 1983, Vienna 1989, Copenhagen 1990, Budapest 1994 and Istanbul 1999 declarations.

On top of this, the EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) state that:

| | The parties shall cooperate on all questions relevant to the establishment or reinforcement of democratic institutions, including those required in order to strengthen the rule of law, and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms according to international law and OSCE principles. |
| --- | --- |

The parties shall cooperate on all questions relevant to the establishment or reinforcement of democratic institutions, including those required in order to strengthen the rule of law, and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms according to international law and OSCE principles.

Of the countries mentioned in the question, the EU has Partnership and cooperation agreements with Armenia (1), Azerbaijan (2), Georgia (3), Kazakhstan (4), Russia (5) and Uzbekistan (6).

The most recent meetings of the Cooperation Councils with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia took place on 30 September 2003 (press release 13071/03), with Kazakhstan, on 22 July 2003 (press release 11440/03), with Russia, on 15 April 2003 (press release 7933/03) and with Uzbekistan, on 27 January 2003 (press release 5399/03). At all of these meetings the EU raised the question of respect for OSCE rules.

Concerning Belarus, the Council (General Affairs and External Relations) adopted conclusions on 14 April 2003, which included a position on the situation of democracy and human rights in Belarus. Also in April 2003, the EU co-sponsored a Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Belarus which expresses deep concern about reports of potential increased restrictions on the activities of religious organisations.

During the last year, the EU has also issued declarations and made demarches in cases of violation of religious freedom, particularly regarding the approval of the law on freedom of conscience and religious organisations.

As for Turkmenistan, the EU made a declaration on 20 January 2003 (5462/03) calling upon the President and the Government of Turkmenistan fully to cooperate with the process launched in the framework of the OSCE under the mechanism agreed at the 1991 Moscow meeting of the conference on the human dimension.

All of the abovementioned documents are publicly available on the internet.

---

(1)  OJ L 239, 9.9.1999.

(2)  OJ L 246, 17.9.1999.

(3)  OJ L 205, 4.8.1999.

(4)  OJ L 196, 28.7.1999.

(5)  OJ L 327, 28.11.1997.

(6)  OJ L 229, 31.8.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/217

---

(2004/C 84 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Reduction in VAT rates for labour-intensive sectors

During the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2003 the European Commission reduced VAT in a number of sectors to 6 %, by way of an experiment. In the Netherlands, this applied to hairdressers, painters and plasterers of housing over 15 years old, bicycle repair services and shoe and clothing repair services. The aim of the reduction in VAT was to increase employment.

The experiment with a lower rate of VAT on labour-intensive services proved a success. A study by the Central Planning Office (CPB) based on Netherlands statistics shows that the reduction in the VAT rate clearly had a positive effect on employment. The report speaks of a ‘significant impact on employment’. For example, employment (full-time equivalent) rose by 14,5 % in the hairdressing sector during the period 1999 to 2002, compared with a total average rise in employment during this period in the Netherlands of only 4 %.

Despite this, the Commission announced on 16 July that it did not intend to continue with the experiment involving reduced VAT on labour-intensive services.

| 1. | Does the Commission recognise the importance of the aforementioned labour-intensive sectors for employment and the economy in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission recognise the importance of the aforementioned labour-intensive sectors for employment and the economy in the Netherlands?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the positive effects on employment resulting from the reduction in the VAT rate for the above-mentioned labour-intensive services in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the positive effects on employment resulting from the reduction in the VAT rate for the above-mentioned labour-intensive services in the Netherlands?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree that its conclusions are based on a possibly incomplete and one-sided analysis of the effects of the experiments to date? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree that its conclusions are based on a possibly incomplete and one-sided analysis of the effects of the experiments to date? If not, why not?

| 4. | Does the Commission intend to reconsider its decision to end the experiment involving a low VAT rate on labour-intensive services, taking account of the current economic situation? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission intend to reconsider its decision to end the experiment involving a low VAT rate on labour-intensive services, taking account of the current economic situation? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

| 1. | On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates of VAT (1). Since the Commission's aim was to improve the operation of the internal market it was important to give all Member States the same rights in deciding whether they applied reduced rates, and for the same sectors.
  The proposal for a Directive does not provide for reduced rates for labour-intensive services as such. In its evaluation report on the experiment with reduced rates for such services (2), the Commission concluded that, from the information supplied by the Member States and given the limitations of the methods of analysis used, it was not possible to find solid evidence of such reductions either boosting job creation or having an impact on the black economy.
  For the purposes of this report the Commission used its QUEST macro-economic model to carry out a an analysis of the effects of a reduced rate of VAT compared with the effects of reduced labour charges. The results showed that even in the most favourable hypothesis, namely that the entire reduction of VAT rates was passed on in domestic prices, a reduction in charges on labour creates 52 % more jobs, calculated for the EU as a whole, for the same budgetary cost.
  However, it should be noted that some sectors currently covered by the experiment (work on private housing and home care services) have been included in Annex H because many Member States already apply reduced rates or exemptions for these services under specific derogations which they have been granted. This is not the case for small repairs and hairdressing, since only a minority of Member States currently apply reduced rates to those services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates of VAT (1). Since the Commission's aim was to improve the operation of the internal market it was important to give all Member States the same rights in deciding whether they applied reduced rates, and for the same sectors.

The proposal for a Directive does not provide for reduced rates for labour-intensive services as such. In its evaluation report on the experiment with reduced rates for such services (2), the Commission concluded that, from the information supplied by the Member States and given the limitations of the methods of analysis used, it was not possible to find solid evidence of such reductions either boosting job creation or having an impact on the black economy.

For the purposes of this report the Commission used its QUEST macro-economic model to carry out a an analysis of the effects of a reduced rate of VAT compared with the effects of reduced labour charges. The results showed that even in the most favourable hypothesis, namely that the entire reduction of VAT rates was passed on in domestic prices, a reduction in charges on labour creates 52 % more jobs, calculated for the EU as a whole, for the same budgetary cost.

However, it should be noted that some sectors currently covered by the experiment (work on private housing and home care services) have been included in Annex H because many Member States already apply reduced rates or exemptions for these services under specific derogations which they have been granted. This is not the case for small repairs and hairdressing, since only a minority of Member States currently apply reduced rates to those services.

| 2. and 3. | The Commission has indeed seen the Centraal Planbureau study sent to it by the Netherlands Government. Although the Netherlands report did not reach the Commission until after the evaluation report was adopted, it did not alter the general trend which had emerged from the reports received from the Member States participating in the experiment and all the other information available to the Commission when it drew up its report. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

The Commission has indeed seen the Centraal Planbureau study sent to it by the Netherlands Government. Although the Netherlands report did not reach the Commission until after the evaluation report was adopted, it did not alter the general trend which had emerged from the reports received from the Member States participating in the experiment and all the other information available to the Commission when it drew up its report.

| 4. | The Commission proposal of 23 July 2003 is currently being examined by the Council. It will be up to the Council to decide, on a unanimous basis and in the light of Parliament's opinion, the future scope of reduced rates of VAT. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission proposal of 23 July 2003 is currently being examined by the Council. It will be up to the Council to decide, on a unanimous basis and in the light of Parliament's opinion, the future scope of reduced rates of VAT.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 397 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 309 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/218 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/218

---

(2004/C 84 E/0262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Creation of a new airline from Olympic Airways

The Hellenic Parliament recently adopted a law regulating the form and operation of a new airline, Olympic Airlines, derived from Olympic Airways.

Article 11 of the new law annuls the collective labour agreements and procedures for reaching agreement concluded with the trade unions, following their termination by the Board of Olympic Airways and Olympic Aviation, while paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 9 of Law 1876/1990, which govern the period of validity of collective labour agreements, have ceased to apply.

Given that these developments constitute a change in industrial relations to the detriment of the workforce during the transfer to the new company, will the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the annulment of articles of Law 1876/1990 governing compliance with collective agreements and procedures for reaching agreement (an article of the new law) is consistent with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (1) relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the annulment of articles of Law 1876/1990 governing compliance with collective agreements and procedures for reaching agreement (an article of the new law) is consistent with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (1) relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, and

| 2. | whether, in the event of non-compliance with the articles of Directive 98/50/EC, the Commission will intervene, and in what manner, to safeguard the rights of the workers who are being transferred to the new company and the rights of those remaining with the old company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether, in the event of non-compliance with the articles of Directive 98/50/EC, the Commission will intervene, and in what manner, to safeguard the rights of the workers who are being transferred to the new company and the rights of those remaining with the old company?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

In its letter of 30 October 2003, the Commission asked the Greek authorities for additional information on the questions raised by the Honourable Member about the social aspects of the formation of this new airline. As it received no response, it sent a reminder on 17 February 2004, giving the company two weeks to reply, which it failed to do.

As a result, the Commission is now considering what action it should take and will take care to inform the Honourable Member.

The Commission also decided on 17 March 2004 to examine in detail whether the formation of this new airline in September 2003 was compatible with the EC Treaty's rules on State aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/219 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/219

---

(2004/C 84 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Freedom and pluralism in information

The Commission adopted the Green Paper on Services of General Interest (1) on 21 May 2003. Among other issues the Green Paper tackles the question whether the possibility of taking tangible measures to protect pluralism should be re-considered at Community level and what measures might be envisaged. All interested parties were invited to submit their comments by 15 September 2003.

Can the Commission say what comments it has received and what steps it intends to take as regards safeguarding pluralism?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

In the public consultation on the Green Paper the Commission has received up to now about 260 contributions. Comments were sent in particular by governments of Member States, a national Parliament, regional and local authorities, national regulatory authorities, providers of local services, providers of social services and health services, operators in network industries, organisations in the media sector, trade unions, consumer organisations and industry associations. Also political parties, academic institutions and individual citizens sent their comments.

The Commission is currently still analysing the contributions received. However, the comments for which an explicit authorisation to publish was given have already been made available on the Commission's Internet site (2).

The Commission intends to present its conclusions from the consultation on the Green Paper during the first semester of 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 270 final.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest/

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/220

---

(2004/C 84 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3114/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Spreading of false scientific claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms in combating AIDS by Catholic Church leaders/the Holy See/the Vatican City State

Knowing that:

| — | on 10 October 2003 the British daily newspaper The Guardian' published an article entitled ‘We have faith in condoms’ stating that Catholic Church leaders/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State are warning against using condoms to prevent AIDS, claiming that the HIV virus can pass through the thick mesh of rubber in condoms, hence making them useless for protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 10 October 2003 the British daily newspaper The Guardian' published an article entitled ‘We have faith in condoms’ stating that Catholic Church leaders/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State are warning against using condoms to prevent AIDS, claiming that the HIV virus can pass through the thick mesh of rubber in condoms, hence making them useless for protection;

| — | the article announced that the BBC's Panorama programme, due to be televised the following Sunday, would broadcast an interview with the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who told British journalists ‘The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than a spermatozoon’ and can therefore easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom ... ‘These margins of uncertainty should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the article announced that the BBC's Panorama programme, due to be televised the following Sunday, would broadcast an interview with the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who told British journalists ‘The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than a spermatozoon’ and can therefore easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom ... ‘These margins of uncertainty should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger’;

| — | in response to these statements the World Health Organisation said ‘These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million ...’; |
| --- | --- |

—

in response to these statements the World Health Organisation said ‘These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million ...’;

| — | the anti-condom campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State is being conducted in particular in third-world countries devastated by AIDS, where it has substantial power over the distribution of medicine and health-care supplies and where the campaign is likely to have catastrophic effects. |
| --- | --- |

—

the anti-condom campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State is being conducted in particular in third-world countries devastated by AIDS, where it has substantial power over the distribution of medicine and health-care supplies and where the campaign is likely to have catastrophic effects.

In view of the European Union's institutional and diplomatic relations with the Holy See,

can the Council say:

| — | whether it considers that the statements made by leaders of the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State regarding condoms are correct according to the scientific information it has as its disposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the statements made by leaders of the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State regarding condoms are correct according to the scientific information it has as its disposal;

| — | what measures in the form of information, prevention, sanctions and diplomatic moves it intends to promote in response to these claims and in order to oppose the irresponsible campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State, which threatens to nullify the European and international policies to combat the spread of AIDS, the deaths caused by it and other sexually transmitted diseases in Europe and worldwide; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures in the form of information, prevention, sanctions and diplomatic moves it intends to promote in response to these claims and in order to oppose the irresponsible campaign by the Catholic Church/alias the Holy See/alias the Vatican City State, which threatens to nullify the European and international policies to combat the spread of AIDS, the deaths caused by it and other sexually transmitted diseases in Europe and worldwide;

| — | whether it considers that there is an urgent need to revise Article 51 of the draft European Constitution in order to ensure that ‘recognising their identity and their specific contribution’ does not entail having to accept as ‘scientific’ statements dictated by prejudice? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that there is an urgent need to revise Article 51 of the draft European Constitution in order to ensure that ‘recognising their identity and their specific contribution’ does not entail having to accept as ‘scientific’ statements dictated by prejudice?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

It is not for the Council to comment on statements appearing in the press. Within the framework of its powers, the Union attaches great importance to the prevention of diseases such as AIDS, in particular in the context of its development policy.

With regard to revision of Article 51 of the draft Constitution, the Council would advise the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the relevant bodies.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/221 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/221

---

(2004/C 84 E/0265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

At the recent Ecofin Council in Luxembourg 7 October 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein announced that the Commission was against any reduction in VAT on audio recording media and CDs as this might create distortions of competition.

Against the background of the current discussions in Unesco concerning the creation of an international legal instrument to safeguard cultural diversity, will the European Commission examine whether a reduction in VAT is feasible and desirable for CDs by new artists and/or artists singing in local or regional languages and/or home-grown musicians (irrespective of whether or not they sing in their own language) and/or for certain genres of music?

Is the European Commission prepared to authorise some reduced VAT rates for CDs with the specific aim of safeguarding cultural diversity?

If so, what steps will the Commission take to bring this about in the near future?

If not, what measures does the Commission consider have higher priority in safeguarding cultural diversity?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates (1) on 23 July 2003. This proposal does not introduce reduced rates for CDs and other audiovisual media. Its objective is to improve the Internal Market through further simplification and more uniform application of VAT.

The standard rate of VAT (which ranges from 15 % to 25 %) currently applies to CDs and cassettes in the 15 Member States. After very careful consideration the Commission concluded that, in view of the divergences between Member States, the optional application of reduced rates for CDs and cassettes would inevitably have an adverse impact on the European Internal Market in a sector where the risk of distorsions of competition which would thereby be created is far from insignificant.

VAT rates have to be set in an objective way and different rates cannot be applied according to type of music, artist, language, etc. Such practices would be discriminatory and could call into question one of the basic features of VAT, its neutrality and objectivity. Consequently, VAT is not an appropriate instrument to promote certain genres of music and the Commission does not intend to propose that reduced VAT rates be authorised for CDs or cassettes.

As regards the creation of an international instrument to promote cultural diversity in Unesco, the Commission welcomes the unanimous decision taken by the Unesco General Conference on 17 October 2003 to begin work on a convention.

The Commission indicated its approval of the creation of such a legal instrument by Unesco in its Communication of 27 August 2003 (Towards an international instrument on cultural diversity) (2).

In addition, the Directive on television without frontiers (Council Directive of 3 October 1989 89/552/EEC (3) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (4)) contains several provisions which promote cultural diversity. In particular, it requires that, where practicable, broadcasters reserve a majority of their transmission time for European works, and at least 10 % of their transmission time, or 10 % of their programming budget, for European works created by producers independent from broadcasters.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 397 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 520 final.

(3)  OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(4)  OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/222

---

(2004/C 84 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Deportation of Chechens

A Chechen mother and her two children, aged six and seven, who arrived at Roissy airport on 2 October, were deported to Moscow on 12 October. According to the newspaper ‘Libération’, the woman, whose husband had been kidnapped by masked men, had chosen to flee Grozny after receiving threats whilst she was looking for her husband. The French authorities deemed that the asylum claim was unwarranted, as the woman had been unable to identify the men who had abducted her husband. In Brussels, the Belgian authorities refused a request for asylum from Mr Said-Magomed Khachukaev, deputy editor of The Chechen Times, and on Monday 13 deported him either to Germany or to Moscow, depending on the source.

Is the Council aware of these deportations of Chechen citizens and those of Mr Khachukaev and the mother and two children mentioned in Libération in particular? Does the Council have even a vague idea of the dangers facing Chechens expelled to Russia? Does the Council intend to adopt a common position according to which the Member States would agree not to deport Chechen refugees until the Russian authorities were able to guarantee a minimum amount of respect for basic rights in Chechnya? What initiatives does the Council plan to take to acquire the necessary means to collect ‘detailed information about the cases of civilian abductions’ (see the Council's answer to question E-0748/03 (1))? Does the Council not think that the embassies of the 15 Member States and the 10 applicant countries, the Commission Delegation in Moscow and organisations such as Amnesty International, Memorial, Human Rights Watch and Médecins du Monde could provide it with in-depth information about the abduction of civilians and, more generally, the very serious human rights violations committed in Chechnya?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not competent to intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States.

Regarding the adoption of a common position as referred to in the question, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not, at that stage, for seen by the Council.

Finally, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address directly his last question regarding the in-depths information about the abduction of civilians to the relevant authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 48.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/223

---

(2004/C 84 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   EU preparedness in the event of biological attack

The Commission adopted a Communication on Cooperation in the European Union on Preparedness and Response to Biological and Chemical Agent Attacks on 2 June 2003 (1).

In its Communication, the Commission recommends stockpiling at EU level, but Member States have shown preference for the development of national stockpiles only. The Communication states ‘the sizes of the national stockpiles in relation to the national population range from enough to provide a dose for every citizen in the Member State to enough for one citizen in thirty’ (page 15).

Can the Council explain the reasons for not taking into account the Commission recommendation for a coordinated Community-level stockpile of smallpox vaccines?

Based on the Council approach, how does the Council intend to guarantee an equal supply and distribution of vaccines for all EU citizens, including those in the accession countries, in the event of a bioterrorism attack?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Article 152(5) of the Treaty states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

As mentioned in the Commission's Communication which the Council received on 5 June 2003, the Member States have through the Pharmaceutical Committee network and through the Health Security Committee considered the need for the establishment of a Community stockpile of, inter alia, smallpox vaccines with the Commission services-pharmaceutical industry task force. As mentioned in the same Commission Communication, consultations on options for a Community stockpile or virtual reserve or a strategic sharing of national stockpiles showed that most Member States would not support either the establishment of a Community level stockpile of smallpox vaccines or formal arrangements for sharing national stockpiles. Indeed for different reasons different Member States have until now considered that a Community level stockpile would not provide added value over the existing and planned national stockpiles.

Given that this consultation process concerns an area of strictly Member State competence and given that it took place under the auspices of the Commission and not the Council, the Honourable Member may wish to take this matter up with the Commission and/or the individual Member States.

---

(1)  COM(2003)320.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/223

---

(2004/C 84 E/0268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Support for institutions working with women and girls who are victims of prostitution

In Portugal, there are institutions dedicated to the prevention and social integration of women and girls who are victims of prostitution. Shortage of funding poses real problems.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What aid has been granted to Portugal under the Daphne programme? Which institutions benefited from this aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What aid has been granted to Portugal under the Daphne programme? Which institutions benefited from this aid?

| 2. | What other programmes, Community funds or budgetary items could be used by institutions working on the prevention and social reintegration of women who are victims of prostitution? What subsidies have been granted to Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What other programmes, Community funds or budgetary items could be used by institutions working on the prevention and social reintegration of women who are victims of prostitution? What subsidies have been granted to Portugal?

| 3. | What monies have been granted to Portugal in connection with sexually transmitted diseases? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What monies have been granted to Portugal in connection with sexually transmitted diseases?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

As regards the first question concerning the Daphne programme, the following information can be provided.

Since 1997 nine projects carried out by Portuguese organisations were financed under the Daphne programme for a total of EUR 680 000. Information on each of them is being transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In addition, 59 Portuguese organisations or local authorities were partners in 32 Daphne projects.

With regard to Community aid for institutions which work on the prevention of prostitution and the social reintegration of women who are victims of prostitution, the European Social Fund can co-finance — under the Community Support Framework (CSF) III — measures for the benefit of disadvantaged groups in general. Special reference should be made to the operational programme ‘employment, training and social development’, which, in section five on social development, provides for measures to encourage social and occupational integration of the most vulnerable groups in society.

With regard to Community action in relation to sexually transmissible diseases, the main financing tool at present is the ‘public health’ action programme (2003-2008). The Commission has not yet taken a final decision on the projects accepted for financing following an initial call for proposals under this programme and so cannot yet state its position on participation by Portugal. With regard to precursor programmes, and in particular the programme on the prevention of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), the projects financed by the Community usually cover almost all Member States. Given that the Community aid is granted to the project coordinator, who, for his part, is responsible for distributing it to the project partners, the Commission cannot put a figure on the amount of aid granted to the Portuguese partners under this programme.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/224 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/224

---

(2004/C 84 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Search made of the offices of the newspaper ‘Il Giornale’: violation of press freedom in Italy

On Friday, 17 October 2003 the main office of ‘Il Giornale’, the major Italian daily which is currently investigating the takeover of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by decision of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office. The search by the police forces lasted 13 hours, at the end of which a considerable amount of material belonging to journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It is believed that the only charge against the journalist is that of defamation of a Rome magistrate via the press.

Does the Council consider that these decisions represent a blatant violation of freedom of the press and freedom of expression?

Does the Council consider that these decisions violate the EU Council of Ministers recommendations of 8 March 2000 to the Member States, under which no interceptions, inspections or searches may be carried out where such measures tend to infringe a journalist's right not to reveal his sources?

Does the Council not consider the decisions of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office to be contrary to the European Court of Human Rights' famous Goodwin ruling, which acknowledged the right of journalists to professional secrecy?

Does the Council not also consider that the decisions of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office are contrary to the European Court of Human Rights ruling No 33400/96 of 15 July 2003, which clearly stated that searches of newspaper offices to ascertain the sources of articles are a serious violation of the freedom of expression?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council does not comment on cases under jurisdictional procedure nor does it interpret rulings of the European Court of Human Rights with respect to individual cases.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/225 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/225

---

(2004/C 84 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   The ‘Buy American Act’ in the American defence budget

Is the Council aware that a law has been included in the American defence budget of the House of Representatives that extensively commits the Pentagon to buying American defence materiel, viz. the so-called ‘Buy American Act’?

What is the Council's position in relation to the ‘Buy American Act’ that has been incorporated into US Defense Authorization Bill FY 2004?

What efforts has the Council made in seeking to prevent the act's adoption?

To what extent does the act amount to a violation of international trade treaties?

What impact will the act's adoption have on the arms industry in Europe and on cooperation in the area of arms production between the EU and the USA?

What countermeasures will the Council take if the act is definitively adopted?

Does the Council intend, if the act were to be adopted, to recommend to EU Member States that they adopt the same arrangements as those that the act would impose on the Pentagon?

Does the Council consider that adoption of the ‘Buy American Act’ will put the already strained relations with the United States under even more pressure?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council is aware of a bill adopted by the US House of Representatives which contained amendments to existing procurement laws requiring the Pentagon to favour US manufacturers.

The EU has been following developments very closely and has repeatedly conveyed its concerns on this issue to the US Administration, not least during political dialogue meetings held in the framework of the New Transatlantic Agenda. The US Administration has repeatedly assured the EU that it did not support the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives.

The Council understands that the legislation which was given final approval by Congress on 12 November 2003 does not contain the provisions which would have been potentially harmful for the EU industry.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/226 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/226

---

(2004/C 84 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3246/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism

The deaths (through hunger, poverty and drowning) of a number of Somali refugees (mostly from Mogadishu) which have occurred off the Italian coast are a reminder of the thousands of Somalis who have died since 1991 in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea whilst desperately fleeing a dictatorial regime linked to the Islamic fundamentalism which is responsible for the deaths of the lay missionary Tonelli and of two UK citizens belonging to the SOS organisation and which is represented by terrorist organisations such as Al-Ittihad and Al-Islah.

Knowing that:

| — | the interim president, Salad Hassan (who, according to the list of international terrorist organisations, was some months ago deposed as head of Al-Islah), has walked out of the Nairobi Conference (which has been going on for over a year) and is allegedly calling for annulment of all that the Somali representatives have agreed at Nairobi under the eyes of international observers and (once again) for a Reconciliation Conference to be held in Mogadishu — a city from which Somalis are escaping even if in so doing they are putting their own lives at risk; |
| --- | --- |

—

the interim president, Salad Hassan (who, according to the list of international terrorist organisations, was some months ago deposed as head of Al-Islah), has walked out of the Nairobi Conference (which has been going on for over a year) and is allegedly calling for annulment of all that the Somali representatives have agreed at Nairobi under the eyes of international observers and (once again) for a Reconciliation Conference to be held in Mogadishu — a city from which Somalis are escaping even if in so doing they are putting their own lives at risk;

| — | the leader of the Transitional National Government has denounced Somali leaders who report ‘Muslim brothers’ accused of terrorism to the Kenyans and to the Americans and has requested the release of the USD 8,5 million belonging to the Al-Barakat financial network on the grounds that the funds are private ones and include money which is his; |
| --- | --- |

—

the leader of the Transitional National Government has denounced Somali leaders who report ‘Muslim brothers’ accused of terrorism to the Kenyans and to the Americans and has requested the release of the USD 8,5 million belonging to the Al-Barakat financial network on the grounds that the funds are private ones and include money which is his;

| — | in Somalia, militiamen who rebel against fundamentalism and terrorism continue to be murdered or executed and it appears that Mogadishu's ‘new coalition’ includes Jumale, the Al-Barakat leader who has already been expelled from the United Arab Emirates. |
| --- | --- |

—

in Somalia, militiamen who rebel against fundamentalism and terrorism continue to be murdered or executed and it appears that Mogadishu's ‘new coalition’ includes Jumale, the Al-Barakat leader who has already been expelled from the United Arab Emirates.

In the light of the above information, can the Council:

| 1. | galvanise diplomatic circles in order to bring the Nairobi Conference to an end and to provide Somalia with a federal government which will take the action required in order to enable democratic elections to be held? |
| --- | --- |

1.

galvanise diplomatic circles in order to bring the Nairobi Conference to an end and to provide Somalia with a federal government which will take the action required in order to enable democratic elections to be held?

| 2. | make active efforts with a view to eradicating terrorism and isolating those who, in recent years, have more or less openly accepted and protected the terrorist groupings which have links with Al-Qaeda and which are responsible, inter alia, for the attacks carried out in Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam and Mombasa? |
| --- | --- |

2.

make active efforts with a view to eradicating terrorism and isolating those who, in recent years, have more or less openly accepted and protected the terrorist groupings which have links with Al-Qaeda and which are responsible, inter alia, for the attacks carried out in Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam and Mombasa?

| 3. | launch (either on its own or in conjunction with the UN) a humanitarian-aid programme for the local people? |
| --- | --- |

3.

launch (either on its own or in conjunction with the UN) a humanitarian-aid programme for the local people?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council believes that a comprehensive and broad-based peace agreement between the different Somali factions is the most effective way to achieve sustainable peace and to establish a federal government. The EU has been actively supporting the IGAD sponsored peace and reconciliation process by making its position clear in public conclusions and declarations and by diplomatic démarches with the main players. The EU as part of the international observer group attending the Conference is determined to help bring the Nairobi Conference to a successful end. Despite recurrent setbacks in the talks it will continue with its efforts and impress upon all Somali leaders the need to maintain the momentum in the peace process and to abstain from any action that may disrupt the Conference. Substantial financial support has been provided by the EU, apart from Member States' bilateral contributions, the Commission has provided EUR 5,6 million to the peace process. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council believes that a comprehensive and broad-based peace agreement between the different Somali factions is the most effective way to achieve sustainable peace and to establish a federal government. The EU has been actively supporting the IGAD sponsored peace and reconciliation process by making its position clear in public conclusions and declarations and by diplomatic démarches with the main players. The EU as part of the international observer group attending the Conference is determined to help bring the Nairobi Conference to a successful end. Despite recurrent setbacks in the talks it will continue with its efforts and impress upon all Somali leaders the need to maintain the momentum in the peace process and to abstain from any action that may disrupt the Conference. Substantial financial support has been provided by the EU, apart from Member States' bilateral contributions, the Commission has provided EUR 5,6 million to the peace process.

| 2. | As to the fight against terrorism the EU is closely following the situation in Somalia. EU measures to facilitate police and judicial co-operation within the EU, including a European arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism will also make it easier to combat terrorism with connections to Somalia.
  In addition the EU has been playing an active role in the fight against the funding of terrorism, in particular through the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1373/2001 on the freezing of assets. The Council recalls that the EU strictly abides by the Security Council stipulations regarding the list established under resolutions 1267/1999 and 1333/2000 and referring to individuals and organizations belonging to or associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaida including in Somalia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As to the fight against terrorism the EU is closely following the situation in Somalia. EU measures to facilitate police and judicial co-operation within the EU, including a European arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism will also make it easier to combat terrorism with connections to Somalia.

In addition the EU has been playing an active role in the fight against the funding of terrorism, in particular through the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1373/2001 on the freezing of assets. The Council recalls that the EU strictly abides by the Security Council stipulations regarding the list established under resolutions 1267/1999 and 1333/2000 and referring to individuals and organizations belonging to or associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaida including in Somalia.

| 3. | Despite the difficult situation in Somalia, the EU has been active in providing humanitarian assistance to the Somali people. The European Commission in particular has been continuously present in the country where it plays a central role in the donor community. An amount of EUR 25 million in disbursements is being foreseen in 2003. The special aid package of EUR 199 million decided for the period 2002-2007 will provide for this level to be sustained in the years to come. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Despite the difficult situation in Somalia, the EU has been active in providing humanitarian assistance to the Somali people. The European Commission in particular has been continuously present in the country where it plays a central role in the donor community. An amount of EUR 25 million in disbursements is being foreseen in 2003. The special aid package of EUR 199 million decided for the period 2002-2007 will provide for this level to be sustained in the years to come.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/227 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/227

---

(2004/C 84 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3248/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Possibility of tracking cellphone users

Information has recently come to light regarding the commercial possibilities offered by mobile telephony networks which are being exploited by at least six companies in Great Britain, making it possible to pinpoint the location of a cellphone user at a very low monthly cost (EUR 7,5). Clearly this opens the door to the exploitation of sensitive personal information, for example by employers wishing to know where their employees are at any given moment. A number of ideas were also put forward regarding a code of conduct on the part of these companies which in theory, offer protection to cellphone users who do not wish their whereabouts to be divulged. The arguments put forward however were singularly unconvincing, given the danger of the emergence of a surveillance mentality with unforeseeable consequences.

What action does the Council intend to take to protect European citizens from the use of mobile telephony to track their movements?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | Agreements between network operators, service providers and customers of mobile telephone communications are to be negotiated between them, in respect of existing provisions, especially those for data protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Agreements between network operators, service providers and customers of mobile telephone communications are to be negotiated between them, in respect of existing provisions, especially those for data protection.

| 2. | As concerns lawful interception of telecommunications, the Council has adopted a Resolution which reaffirms the need to observe the right of individuals to respect for their privacy (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

As concerns lawful interception of telecommunications, the Council has adopted a Resolution which reaffirms the need to observe the right of individuals to respect for their privacy (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/228 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/228

---

(2004/C 84 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3251/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

What steps is the Council taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April has been updated by Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP of 27 June 2003, when, following recommendations from the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 additional names have been added to the list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2003/280/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April has been updated by Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP of 27 June 2003, when, following recommendations from the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 additional names have been added to the list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2003/280/CFSP.

| 2. | The Common Position is kept under constant review and the Council can adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required in order to assist the ICTY. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Common Position is kept under constant review and the Council can adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required in order to assist the ICTY.

---

(1)  OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/228 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/228

---

(2004/C 84 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Qualified majority voting

Can the Council state on how many occasions each year for the last five years each Member State has been outvoted in the Council when a decision on a legislative proposal (directive, regulation, decision) has been taken by qualified majority voting?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Council's reply to question E-3938/00 concerning the same subject and relating to the years 1995-2000.

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that, since January 2001, the General Secretariat of the Council has published monthly records of the Council's activities, including voting results and explanations, on the Council's Internet site (http://ue.eu.int).

The Council would in any case invite the Honourable Member to consult the tables set out in the annex to this reply.

Annex

| | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total number of final legislative acts | 219 | 199 | 191 | 187 | 195 |
| Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 2002 | 56 | 31 | 21 | 31 | 37 |
| Abstentions | 60 | 30 | 22 | 27 | 26 |
| Abstentions | 34 | 9 | 12 | 25 | 31 |

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total number of final legislative acts

219

199

191

187

195

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 2002

56

31

21

31

37

Abstentions

60

30

22

27

26

Abstentions

34

9

12

25

31

A.   VOTES AGAINST BY MEMBER STATE

Votes against on adoption of a final legislative act in 1998

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | Ë1 | ES | FR | FI | IT | IR | LU | NL | FT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| February | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 |
| March | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| April | | 1 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| May | 1 | | 2 | 1 | | | | | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | 2 | 1 |
| June | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 2 | 1 | | |
| July | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | | | | 7 | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | |
| December | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 3 | | | 1 | 1 | | |
| Total | 3 | 4 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 3 | 2 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

Ë1

ES

FR

FI

IT

IR

LU

NL

FT

SV

UK

January

February

1

1

1

1

1

March

1

1

1

April

1

2

May

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

June

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

July

1

2

1

1

7

August

September

1

1

October

2

November

2

December

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

Total

3

4

11

7

2

1

3

0

8

2

0

12

2

3

2

Votes against on adoption of a final legislative act in 1999

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | IT | IR | LU | NL | FT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | 1 | | | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | |
| February | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | |
| April | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |
| May | | | | 1 | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| June | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | |
| July | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | 2 | | 1 | 1 | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December | | 1 | | 1 | | | 2 | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | | |
| Total | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

IT

IR

LU

NL

FT

SV

UK

January

1

1

1

February

March

1

1

1

1

April

1

May

1

1

June

1

1

July

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

August

September

October

1

1

1

November

December

1

1

2

1

1

1

Total

1

2

2

4

1

1

3

0

8

1

2

4

1

0

0

Votes against on adoption of a final legislative act in 2000

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | IT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| February | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March | 1 | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| April | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |
| May | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| June | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| July | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | |
| December | | | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

IT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

1

February

March

1

2

April

1

1

May

1

June

1

1

1

July

1

August

September

1

October

November

1

December

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

Total

2

1

4

3

3

0

1

1

1

0

0

2

0

2

2

Votes against on adoption of a final legislative act in 2001

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | IT | IR | LU | NL | FT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |
| February | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |
| March | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | |
| April | | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | |
| May | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | |
| June | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | 1 | |
| July | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| November | | | 1 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |
| December | 1 | 2 | | | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

IT

IR

LU

NL

FT

SV

UK

January

1

February

1

March

1

April

1

1

May

1

1

June

1

1

1

1

July

1

August

September

October

1

1

November

1

2

1

December

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total

1

2

3

3

1

3

3

1

2

1

0

1

0

4

2

Votes against on adoption of a final legislative act in 2002

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | IT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | |
| February | | | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | | |
| March | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |
| April | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| May | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | | | |
| June | 1 | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 |
| July | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 | |
| October | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | |
| December | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | |
| Total | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

IT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

1

1

February

1

1

1

March

1

1

April

May

2

June

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

July

August

September

1

1

1

1

October

1

November

1

December

2

2

Total

1

0

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

0

1

5

1

6

1

Β.   ABSTENTIONS BY MEMBER STATE

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 1998

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | LT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| February | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March | | | | | | 2 | | | | | 1 | | | | |
| April | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| May | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| June | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | | 2 | | | 1 | | | |
| July | | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | 1 | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December | | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | | | | 2 | | |
| Total | 0 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

LT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

February

1

March

2

1

April

1

May

1

June

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

July

1

1

1

August

September

1

1

October

1

1

1

1

November

December

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

Total

0

3

7

1

2

7

2

0

5

0

2

1

4

0

0

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 1999

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | LT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| February | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| April | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |
| May | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | |
| June | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| July | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | 2 |
| Total | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

LT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

1

February

March

April

1

May

1

June

1

July

1

August

September

October

November

December

1

1

2

Total

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

3

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 2000

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | LT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | 1 | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| February | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| March | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | |
| April | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | 1 |
| May | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| June | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| July | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| November | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December | | 1 | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | |
| Total | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

LT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

1

1

February

March

1

1

1

April

1

1

1

May

June

July

1

August

September

1

October

November

December

1

1

Total

0

5

0

2

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 2001

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | LT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | | |
| February | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | |
| March | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| April | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| May | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | |
| June | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | |
| July | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | |
| October | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | 1 |
| November | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| December | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | | | 1 | | | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

LT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

1

1

February

1

1

March

1

April

May

1

1

1

1

June

1

1

1

July

August

September

1

1

October

1

1

1

1

November

2

December

1

1

1

1

1

Total

4

1

5

1

0

2

3

0

3

0

2

1

1

0

2

Abstentions on adoption of a final legislative act in 2002

| | AU | BE | DE | DA | EL | ES | FR | FI | LT | IR | LU | NL | PT | SV | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| January | | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | | | |
| February | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| March | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 |
| April | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | |
| May | | | | 1 | | | | 1 | | | | | | | |
| June | | | 1 | | | | 3 | | | | 1 | | | | 1 |
| July | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |
| August | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| September | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| October | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | |
| November | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | | | 1 | 1 | |
| December | | | | | | | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | 1 |
| Total | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 |

AU

BE

DE

DA

EL

ES

FR

FI

LT

IR

LU

NL

PT

SV

UK

January

2

February

1

1

1

1

1

1

March

1

1

1

April

1

May

1

1

June

1

3

1

1

July

1

1

August

September

October

1

1

November

1

1

1

1

December

1

1

1

Total

0

1

3

4

0

1

6

2

0

0

1

1

3

5

4

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/233

---

(2004/C 84 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3282/03

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Council

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft

Parliament and the Council recently amended Directive 94/25/EC (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft.

This directive is centred on the establishment of environmental and safety standards for the construction of such craft.

However, a further aspect which should not be overlooked is the need for Community harmonisation in the area of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft.

In this connection, does the Council envisage the introduction of a European boatmaster's certificate? If so, what measures does it intend to take to ensure effective regulation in this area?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council attaches great importance to legislative or administrative provisions designed to contribute to raising safety standards in all areas under exclusive or shared Community competency. The recently amended Directive by the European Parliament and the Council on recreational craft should be seen also in this context.

Regarding possible measures to harmonise a European boatmaster's certificate for recreational craft, the Council points out that any such proposal would fall within the Commission's right of initiative. To date, no such proposal has been submitted to the Council.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/233

---

(2004/C 84 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3313/03

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty

On 25 October 2003, it was revealed that, at the informal Ecofin meeting in Stresa, Finance Ministers had been working on substantial changes to the EU Constitutional Treaty, drafted by the European Convention, which were then recorded in the paper, ‘Drafting suggestions on Articles of interest to Ecofin ministers, reflecting a high degree of consensus reached at the Informal Ecofin in Stresa’.

Why are these suggestions treated as confidential and not published immediately, or when did they officially become publicly accessible?

Does the Council Presidency consider it appropriate for Ecofin to take up a position in this way?

Can the Council state which EU Finance Ministers supported these suggestions at the Ecofin meeting in Stresa?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council has not taken any formal position on the draft Constitutional Treaty or on any issues for discussion in the intergovernmental conference, in which the Council as an institution has no role. The paper to which the Member refers relates to an Informal meeting of Ministers of Economy and Finance.

Following discussions at that informal meeting, the Presidency communicated, the outcome of the Ministers' discussions to the President of the intergovernmental conference.

In preparing its documentation for IGC discussions, the IGC President highlighted those points which were discussed by Finance Ministers, — as indicated in document CIG 37/03 Presid 3 of 24 October 2003, which is publicly available.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/234

---

(2004/C 84 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3349/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer opinion poll

October's Eurobarometer opinion poll, carried out at the Commission's request, on ‘Iraq and peace in the world’ claims that 59 % of Europeans view the State of Israel as a threat to world peace. The opinion poll was carried out by EOS Gallup Europe. After its findings were made known, the European Council, through Italian Foreign Minister Frattini, distanced itself from the survey (Le Figaro, Tuesday, 4 November).

Is this an instance of disagreement between the Council and the Commission? Why did the Council say that the Commission had sent out a ‘false signal’ with this survey? Was there any consultation between the Council and the Commission on the matter?

What would the Council's actual response be if it was itself asked whether ‘Israel present's a threat to peace in the world’?

Is this the first time that the Council has distanced itself from an opinion poll carried out at the Commission's request? If not, when has this happened before?

Does the Council agree with the Israeli Ambassador to Italy that such an irresponsible survey makes it more difficult for Europe to play a part in the Middle East peace process?

What approach to the Israeli authorities will the Council take so as to combat the negative image of Europe to which this survey may give rise among the Israeli population?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | The Eurobarometer opinion poll the Honorable Member of the European Parliament is referring to has been carried out under the authority of the European Commission, which has already explained its position on the outcome. The Council has not commented on the opinion poll specifically. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Eurobarometer opinion poll the Honorable Member of the European Parliament is referring to has been carried out under the authority of the European Commission, which has already explained its position on the outcome. The Council has not commented on the opinion poll specifically.

| 2. | The Council is however concerned with Israel's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The specific expectations by the EU towards Israel in this context, and the reasoning behind it, were raised at the EU/Israel Association Council on 18 November. They were spelled out in the EU Statement prepared for that occasion, with a view to giving a complete and transparent picture of the EU position, including to the Israeli population. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council is however concerned with Israel's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The specific expectations by the EU towards Israel in this context, and the reasoning behind it, were raised at the EU/Israel Association Council on 18 November. They were spelled out in the EU Statement prepared for that occasion, with a view to giving a complete and transparent picture of the EU position, including to the Israeli population.

| 3. | The Council does not see any direct implications of the survey on the EU's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The Council will continue to pursue its balanced policy to promote peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet Road Map and is confident that this policy will also find recognition with the Israeli public. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council does not see any direct implications of the survey on the EU's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The Council will continue to pursue its balanced policy to promote peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet Road Map and is confident that this policy will also find recognition with the Israeli public.

| 4. | The Council has raised this issue and discussed it with its Israeli counterparts in its regular dialogue with Israel. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council has raised this issue and discussed it with its Israeli counterparts in its regular dialogue with Israel.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/235 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/235

---

(2004/C 84 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3354/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Minority language groups in Greece and official statistics

Commissioner Reding carries out her duties impeccably and her contribution towards upgrading the status of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture is clear. It appears, however, that certain members of staff within that Directorate-General do not provide her with sufficient information and the inadequacy of the answers which they draw up create a poor impression of the Commission which is totally unfounded.

In my question No E-2777/03 (1), I noted that the 1996 Euromosaic study reported (page 41 of the English version) that the number of speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian in Greece ranged between 50 000 and 80 000 and I asked who had compiled these statistics and whether they were official and reliable. The distinguished Commissioner, Mrs Reding, replied that the three drafters of the report collaborated with an expert committee comprising ten members from the Union, the USA and Canada.

Does the Council agree with the above statistics? What official information have the Greek authorities provided concerning speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian? Is it ethical not to use the official statistics of a Member State to estimate the size of certain language groups? Does the Council believe that it is not sufficient for European experts to draw up reports on language groups in the Union? What is its view of the involvement in purely European affairs (which are also extremely sensitive) of experts from countries outside the EU who express opinions on the existence or non-existence of linguistic minorities in Europe? What specific measures has the Council taken in the last ten years on behalf of the (internationally recognised and numerous) Greek minority in northern Epirus, which the Albanian regime persistently tried for almost 50 years to deprive of their language and religion?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Concerning the statistics contained in the Euromosaic Study of 1996, the Council would stress that it is neither its role nor within its competence to pass judgement on work carried out by a third party following a call for tender by the European Commission.

As far as the situation of the Greek-speaking minority in Albania is concerned, it should be recalled that the current negotiations between the EU and Albania taking place in the context of the stabilisation and association process pay particular attention to issues of democratisation and protection of minorities. The European Commission, which received the mandate for negotiations in October 2002, could provide more detailed information in this connection.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 215.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/236 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/236

---

(2004/C 84 E/0279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries

Following extensive research, the Environmental Justice Foundation has concluded that the high levels of bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries are causing ecological degradation on a global scale. According to the FAO, shrimp fisheries alone are responsible for one third of the world's discarded catch, despite producing less than 2 % of seafood. Although shrimp fisheries are particularly non-selective, the issue of bycatch is not limited to these fisheries. Millions of tonnes of bycatch are caught by a variety of fishing methods every year, with trawlers, gillnets and longlines being responsible for a leading share. Left unmanaged, these fisheries will unquestionably lead to a decline in marine biodiversity and productivity, along with increased unemployment and poverty in coastal areas. In 1994, the United Nations General Assembly stated that ‘the issue of bycatch and discards in fishing operations warrants serious attention by the international community’ yet insufficient action has been taken to resolve this over-exploitation. In order to address the issue of bycatch on a global level, EJF recommends the adoption of an ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’ under the auspices of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. EJF would like the EU to take the lead in calling for this IPOA at the next viable opportunity. Given that the EU has recently reformed the CFP to prioritise conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, such a proposal would be in line with current European concerns. An IPOA would not only assist the EU in addressing its own bycatch levels (including those associated with long-distance fleets), but would also push forward international policy in terms of reducing wastage from fisheries.

| 1. | What EU initiatives currently address bycatch reduction (rather than solely reduction in discards) in European waters, and bycatch reduction in long-distance fleets in third-country waters? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What EU initiatives currently address bycatch reduction (rather than solely reduction in discards) in European waters, and bycatch reduction in long-distance fleets in third-country waters?

| 2. | How does the EU monitor bycatch levels and the impacts of bycatch on marine ecosystems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the EU monitor bycatch levels and the impacts of bycatch on marine ecosystems?

| 3. | Is the EU prepared to take a lead in calling for a UN FAO ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the EU prepared to take a lead in calling for a UN FAO ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | In order to enhance the selectivity of shrimp fisheries, Council Regulation No 850/98 contains provisions for the compulsory use of a separator trawl with a sorting grid for shrimp fisheries. These measures are intended to reduce by-catches. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to enhance the selectivity of shrimp fisheries, Council Regulation No 850/98 contains provisions for the compulsory use of a separator trawl with a sorting grid for shrimp fisheries. These measures are intended to reduce by-catches.

| 2. | There are no general rules on by-catch quotas. The technical conservation measures set out minimum percentages of target species on board according to type of fishing gear and mesh size. These rules are monitored at sea and in port by the competent control authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There are no general rules on by-catch quotas. The technical conservation measures set out minimum percentages of target species on board according to type of fishing gear and mesh size. These rules are monitored at sea and in port by the competent control authorities.

| 3. | The Council is presently undertaking an overhaul of the current regulation on technical conservation measures, including the rules on catch composition, by-catches and discards. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council is presently undertaking an overhaul of the current regulation on technical conservation measures, including the rules on catch composition, by-catches and discards.

| 4. | On 8 April 2003, the Council adopted conclusions on the reduction of discards in fisheries on the basis of a Commission action plan. In particular the Council invited the Commission to initiate pilot projects in 2003 to assess the possibility of reducing discards through various measures, including novel fishing gear, voluntary departure from fishing grounds, real-time area closures and also the measure indicated by the Honourable Parliamentarian, i.e. the introduction of by-catch quotas. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 8 April 2003, the Council adopted conclusions on the reduction of discards in fisheries on the basis of a Commission action plan. In particular the Council invited the Commission to initiate pilot projects in 2003 to assess the possibility of reducing discards through various measures, including novel fishing gear, voluntary departure from fishing grounds, real-time area closures and also the measure indicated by the Honourable Parliamentarian, i.e. the introduction of by-catch quotas.

| 5. | Such measures should be seen in the context of the on-going examination of multi-annual fisheries management and the establishment of recovery plans for endangered stocks as provided for in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Such measures should be seen in the context of the on-going examination of multi-annual fisheries management and the establishment of recovery plans for endangered stocks as provided for in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

| 6. | The Commission is currently preparing an assessment of fishery resources in third country waters. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission is currently preparing an assessment of fishery resources in third country waters.

| 7. | The Community has taken the lead in the international action plan to eradicate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). There has been no specific call for an action plan on by-catches. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Community has taken the lead in the international action plan to eradicate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). There has been no specific call for an action plan on by-catches.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/237 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/237

---

(2004/C 84 E/0280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3414/03

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Estonia and directives on equal opportunities

It has come to my notice that Estonia has yet to transpose the EU directives on equal opportunities into national legislation. This would seem remarkable, particularly since the Commission publicly criticised the enlargement countries on 6 November for not meeting requirements ahead of EU accession. On that occasion, however, there was no mention of Estonia and the absence of legislation on equal opportunities.

Can the Council confirm that Estonia has not implemented the directives on equal opportunities?

Can the Council explain why it was not made a requirement for accession to the EU?

What action will the Council take?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Although Estonia has reached a high level of alignment with the acquis in most policy areas, the Council can confirm that Estonia has not yet transposed legislation in the field of equal treatment of women and men. In this context, it should be noted that the Commission's comprehensive monitoring report of 5 November 2003 on Estonia's preparations for membership clearly identifies this issue as a matter of serious concern, where Estonia must take immediate and decisive action if it is to be ready by the date of accession. The Council shares the analysis of the Commission in this regard. It should also be noted that alignment with the acquis in the field of equal opportunities is indeed a requirement for accession (as is the EU acquis as a whole), and that Estonia will achieve this through the adoption of the Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Act and the Employment Contract Act. Estonia is now required to address urgently the substantial delays in the adoption of these two legal acts compared to the original legislative timetable.

In general terms, it should be recalled that the Council has underlined the importance of the process of monitoring the state of preparedness for EU membership of the ten acceding States. This process is an ongoing exercise, which will continue until the date of accession. In this regard, the Council, at its meeting on 17 November 2003, noted that the Commission, taking full advantage of the expertise of the Member States, will continue to follow the acceding States' progress closely using all the means at its disposal to ensure the proper implementation of the Union's rules and policies. Taking into account the Commission's role to safeguard the smooth functioning of all EU policies upon and after accession, the Council also noted the Commission's determination to take, wherever necessary, all appropriate measures for this purpose. Furthermore, the Council took note of the Commission's intention to keep the Council fully and regularly informed on any remaining concerns and on the appropriate measures that it will take in this regard.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/238 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/238

---

(2004/C 84 E/0281)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3415/03

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Council

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003

The Joint Statement of 31 May 2003 issued at the EU-Russia Summit in St Petersburg expressed the hope that ‘the recently started political process as well as the economic and social reconstruction will lead to the restoration of the rule of law, thus promoting the protection of human rights, and to a genuine reconciliation in Chechnya’.

The Declaration of 8 October 2003 made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the presidential elections in Chechnya stated that ‘the EU had already noted negative developments as, inter alia, the lack of real pluralism of candidatures to the presidency and the absence of independent media’ and that ‘considering these developments, the EU expresses serious concerns regarding the conditions in which these elections were held.’

In the same Declaration the Presidency said ‘the EU once again would like to express its hope that commitments will be followed by their implementation and that an immediate, significant improvement of the human rights situation in Chechnya will bridge the divide between the authorities and the population. The EU urges the Russian authorities to do their utmost to advance a genuine political process and to intensify its cooperation with international organisations, and in particular with OSCE, as agreed in the EU-Russia Joint Statement at St. Petersburg.’

Can the Council say what new facts the Presidency has in its possession that allowed Mr Berlusconi to claim that the problems linked to Chechnya can be considered as ‘tales’ put about by the international press?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/238 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/238

---

(2004/C 84 E/0282)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3473/03

by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003

The Joint Statement of 31 May 2003 issued at the EU-Russia Summit in St Petersburg expressed the hope that ‘the recently started political process as well as the economic and social reconstruction will lead to the restoration of the rule of law, thus promoting the protection of human rights, and to a genuine reconciliation in Chechnya’.

The Declaration of 8 October 2003 made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the presidential elections in Chechnya stated that ‘the EU had already noted negative developments as, inter alia, the lack of real pluralism of candidatures to the presidency and the absence of independent media’ and that ‘considering these developments, the EU expresses serious concerns regarding the conditions in which these elections were held.’

In the same Declaration the Presidency said ‘the EU once again would like to express its hope that commitments will be followed by their implementation and that an immediate, significant improvement of the human rights situation in Chechnya will bridge the divide between the authorities and the population. The EU urges the Russian authorities to do their utmost to advance a genuine political process and to intensify its cooperation with international organisations, and in particular with OSCE, as agreed in the EU-Russia Joint Statement at St. Petersburg.’

Can the Council say what new facts the Presidency has in its possession that allowed Mr Berlusconi to claim that the problems linked to Chechnya can be considered as ‘tales’ put about by the international press?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3415/03 and P-3473/03

(9 March 2004)

The Council underlines that it is not for the Council to comment on the declaration quoted at the end of the question.

Regarding the situation in Chechnya, it was discussed in detail during the EU-Russia summit in Rome on 6 November 2003. The absence of a reference to Chechnya in the joint statement from the summit reflected the persistent disagreement between the EU and Russia on the situation there. The EU in particular regretted and rejected the linkage made by Russia between the situation in Chechnya and the situation of the Russian minorities in the Baltic states. The agreed Council position, as quoted in the question, has therefore not changed as a result of the summit.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/239 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/239

---

(2004/C 84 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3440/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in China

At the European-Chinese summit between Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, trade agreements relating to cooperation between China and Europe in the field of satellite navigation were discussed. It was the European Commission which launched the Galileo programme concerning this.

A new report by Amnesty International now states that human rights are being persistently and seriously violated in China. Torture, executions and repression are still commonplace. Amnesty International reports that more than 300 000 political prisoners are being held in special camps in China.

According to various newspaper reports, not a word was spoken about the human rights situation in China at the summit meeting between Berlusconi and Hu Jintao. Are these reports correct?

If so, is it ethically acceptable to hold trade talks with China without raising this issue? Is not progress over human rights an essential condition for progress in relations between the EU and China?

What efforts has the Council made in the past to improve the human rights situation in China through diplomatic channels?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

| 1. | On a general level, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the Council declaration on China presented on the occasion of the European Parliament's plenary session last December. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a general level, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the Council declaration on China presented on the occasion of the European Parliament's plenary session last December.

| 2. | Contrary to sources quoted by the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that human rights issues were on the agenda of the Summit meeting. Human rights issues are raised regularly at all levels with China, including at the highest level. At the Summit meeting which took place on 30 October in Beijing, the EU raised in particular China's accession to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, freedom of expression, religious freedom and the death penalty. Both sides had also addressed human rights issues in policy papers that were published shortly before the Summit. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Contrary to sources quoted by the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that human rights issues were on the agenda of the Summit meeting. Human rights issues are raised regularly at all levels with China, including at the highest level. At the Summit meeting which took place on 30 October in Beijing, the EU raised in particular China's accession to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, freedom of expression, religious freedom and the death penalty. Both sides had also addressed human rights issues in policy papers that were published shortly before the Summit.

| 3. | Since 1995 the EU has held a human rights dialogue with China in principle once per Council Presidency and has organised related seminars on human rights issues with NGOs. These dialogue meetings are conducted on the basis of detailed reports of the human rights situation on the ground prepared by the EU Heads of Delegation in Beijing, which take into account a variety of credible sources, including reports by human rights NGOs. Heads of Delegation are involved in the follow-up to these meetings and in carrying out démarches on individual cases of concern. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since 1995 the EU has held a human rights dialogue with China in principle once per Council Presidency and has organised related seminars on human rights issues with NGOs. These dialogue meetings are conducted on the basis of detailed reports of the human rights situation on the ground prepared by the EU Heads of Delegation in Beijing, which take into account a variety of credible sources, including reports by human rights NGOs. Heads of Delegation are involved in the follow-up to these meetings and in carrying out démarches on individual cases of concern.

| 4. | During the last round of the EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place in Beijing on 27/28 November 2003, both sides acknowledged once again that human rights are an important element of their overall relations and that it is important to keep up the momentum of the Summit. During this meeting and in addition to the issues mentioned above, the EU raised ‘inter alia’ the question of minority rights, co-operation with UN special mechanisms, torture and administrative detention, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS and co-operation projects to strengthen human rights protection in China. |
| --- | --- |

4.

During the last round of the EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place in Beijing on 27/28 November 2003, both sides acknowledged once again that human rights are an important element of their overall relations and that it is important to keep up the momentum of the Summit. During this meeting and in addition to the issues mentioned above, the EU raised ‘inter alia’ the question of minority rights, co-operation with UN special mechanisms, torture and administrative detention, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS and co-operation projects to strengthen human rights protection in China.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/240

---

(2004/C 84 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   EU action against the Guantánamo Bay prison

The European Parliament has asked the current President of the Council, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to protest to Washington about the imprisonment of EU residents at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. 26 EU residents are being held at Camp X-Ray. This prison holds people who have been arrested in connection with the war on terrorism since 11 September.

Does the Council know exactly what offences these 26 detainees are accused of?

Do not national governments have a responsibility to help safeguard the legal rights of their nationals in foreign prisons?

Can the Council provide a list of other EU residents who are being held in other non-European prisons for political reasons or in connection with criminal offences? Does the Council also keep abreast of their situation? How, specifically, does the Council go about this? To what results has it led in the past?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the offences for which any detainees are currently being held in Guantánamo Bay.

As the Council has previously stated in its replies to Written Questions E-1420/03 and E-2444/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is the responsibility of the individual Member States concerned, whether the individuals involved are being held in Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere.

For this reason, the Council does not maintain any list of the type to which the question refers. If a Member State chooses to bring the case of detention of one of its nationals abroad to the attention of the other Member States and requests assistance from the EU in lobbying for his/her release, then the relevant Council Working Group may agree to the Presidency's instructing the EU Heads of Mission in the third country concerned to carry out an appropriate démarche, confidential or otherwise, or to the EU Troika raising the matter in a political dialogue meeting with the third country concerned, where relevant. In such cases, the Presidency normally keeps the Member States informed of the outcome of the démarche or discussion and any follow-up thereto. Such approaches have been successful in some cases in achieving the desired result.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/241 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/241

---

(2004/C 84 E/0285)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3451/03

by Ioannis Marinos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer findings regarding the Euro and inflation

‘Eurobarometer’ 58 covering the period October-November 2002 and published in May 2003 contains a number of very interesting findings regarding the acceptance of the euro by Eurozone inhabitants. Page B80 of the report contains the statistical findings from answers to the question as to whether prices in euro have been rounded up or down, to which 77 % of Eurozone citizens replied that they had been rounded up, while in certain European Union Member States the percentage is even higher, for example in Greece (88 %), Spain (89 %) and the Netherlands (91 %). In reply to the question ‘Do you feel personally attached to the euro?’ 56 % of those questioned in the Eurozone replied that they felt a small degree of attachment to the single currency (34 %) or none at all (22 %), while 61 % of those questioned felt a fairly large (36 %) or very large (25 %) degree of attachment compared with their old national currencies (p. B84 of the report), the total percentage being even higher in Greece (67 %) and Italy (71 %) (p. B83).

Is the Council concerned at these Eurobarometer findings which confirm the suspicion that the introduction of the new currency has led not only to prices being rounded upwards but also provided a pretext for unjustifiably high price increases with foreseeable consequences regarding consumer income, particularly among the lowest paid in the Eurozone (for example the Greeks). Has the Council made recommendations to the governments of those countries in which inflation has noticeably increased following the introduction of the new currency, provoking consumer dissatisfaction and undermining in psychological terms acceptance of not only the euro but, more widely, the European Union, and this in the run-up to the forthcoming enlargement and the European elections of 2004? What replies were given by the governments concerned?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

Neither the Autumn 2003 Economic Forecasts of the Commission, nor the Annual Report of the ECB for 2002 confirm that the changeover to the Euro has led to high price inflation for consumers in the Euro area.

However, the Autumn 2003 Economic Forecasts confirm that inflation differentials among Euro Member States differ widely and that they are forecast to continue to do so in 2004.

In the three largest economies of the Euro area the inflation rate for 2004 is forecast to range from 1,6 % in Germany to 1,8 % in France and 2,3 % in Italy. Forecasted 2004 inflation rates in other Member States are higher: 2,8 % in Spain and 3,7 % in Greece for example, partly because of stronger current and past growth rates.

Average consumer price inflation was for the Euro area in 2000 2,1 %, 2,4 % in 2001 and 2,2 % in 2002 (see table 6 on p. 39 of the ECB Annual Report for 2002).

However, the ECB, for the reasons stated in its report and particularly on p. 42 and following, denies also that large consumer price increases have in fact taken place.

Therefore, the Council cannot share the view of the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Euro switchover has led to high price inflation for consumers, particularly in Greece.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/242 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/242

---

(2004/C 84 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), Phillip Whitehead (PSE), Catherine Stihler (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Post-polio syndrome

During two meetings of the Council of the European Union, the 2384th (Health, 15.11.2001, Brussels) and the 2470th (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs, 2-3.12.2002), the Council took note of statements made by the Belgian Presidency and the Irish delegation on the need for action at EU level to provide an adequate response to sufferers of post-polio syndrome (PPS).

Can the Council comment on the kind of action which has already been taken on this matter, more specifically, on the level of:

| 1. | information about the incidence of PPS within the EU, its onset, and availability of current research; |
| --- | --- |

1.

information about the incidence of PPS within the EU, its onset, and availability of current research;

| 2. | treatment available in the Member States for PPS sufferers to rehabilitate them and remedy their condition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

treatment available in the Member States for PPS sufferers to rehabilitate them and remedy their condition.

| 3. | What funds for research and treatment have been made available from the Community budget? In the absence of any such action hitherto, what is the justification for this lack of follow-up? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What funds for research and treatment have been made available from the Community budget? In the absence of any such action hitherto, what is the justification for this lack of follow-up?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Honourable Members' attention is drawn to the fact that the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care is the Member States' responsibility and that therefore the Council is not competent to comment on any action already taken on post-polio syndrome at the national or regional levels.

As regards any information on the incidence of post-polio syndrome and funding for research at the European level, the Honourable Members may wish to address their specific questions on this matter directly to the Commission, which is responsible for, inter alia, the implementation of the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008). The scope of this programme includes actions and support measures aimed at improving health information and knowledge.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/242 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/242

---

(2004/C 84 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Colombia — ELN hostages

In a video recording released by Reuters, the Colombian guerrillas of the Ejército de Liberación National (ELN) has shown that the seven tourists kidnapped on 12 September whilst visiting Indian ruins are alive.

Three of the seven are citizens of EU Member States (Spain, UK and Germany) and four are Israelis.

The ELM has agreed to the gradual release of the hostages, following the visit by a Humanitarian Council, to testify to the difficult living conditions of the inhabitants of Sierra Nevada, but has warned that it will kill them should the Colombian army attempt to rescue them.

The Council:

| — | Can it confirm that these hostages are alive and in good health? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can it confirm that these hostages are alive and in good health?

| — | What approaches has it made or will it make to the ELN or humanitarian organisations with a view to encouraging their release? |
| --- | --- |

—

What approaches has it made or will it make to the ELN or humanitarian organisations with a view to encouraging their release?

| — | What approaches has it made to the Colombian Government to make it aware of the hostages' situation, and to protect their lives and ensure their release? |
| --- | --- |

—

What approaches has it made to the Colombian Government to make it aware of the hostages' situation, and to protect their lives and ensure their release?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that, at the present time, all the hostages but one have been released.

The EU expects that the only remaining UK hostage will be released as soon as possible.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/243 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/243

---

(2004/C 84 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Romano Prodi — Manifesto

The President of the Commission has written a text entitled ‘Europa: il sogno, le scelte’ explicitly directed to the Italian centre-left parties, calling on them to unite in a single list for the forthcoming European elections and act unitedly in the ensuing Parliament.

This initiative produced an immediate reaction from the Italian opposition parties, and comprehensive criticism from the parties comprising the government majority, having already been repudiated by representatives of European political groups. Italian political commentators have even stated that the Commission President was positioning himself as the possible leader of the left in Italy, with a view to the elections next June.

The Council:

| — | How does it view the initiative taken by the Commission President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? Does it think that Romano Prodi's behaviour compromises the impartiality of the Commission's political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President, and undermines the proper application of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it view the initiative taken by the Commission President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? Does it think that Romano Prodi's behaviour compromises the impartiality of the Commission's political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President, and undermines the proper application of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community?

| — | Does it not believe that the stability and respectability of the European Institutions has been directly jeopardised? Does it intend to do anything about this, and with regard to the Commission President, whose actions can quite simply be viewed as constituting ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not believe that the stability and respectability of the European Institutions has been directly jeopardised? Does it intend to do anything about this, and with regard to the Commission President, whose actions can quite simply be viewed as constituting ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of a Member State?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question, nor has it expressed any view on them. It is not therefore in a position to respond to the Honourable Member.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/244

---

(2004/C 84 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Size of apples

With effect from 1 May 2004 the Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee will allow apples with a diameter of 5 cm to be placed on the European market. In response to this decision, many companies in the sector have already expressed their utmost concern at the damaging effect which this will have on quality produce.

Given that the proposal has not yet been put into effect (since it has still to be approved by the Commission):

| 1. | Does the Commission not agree that such a decision flies in the face of the quality policies which have so far been promoted by the Commission and the EU by means including the CAP reform and the COM in fruit and vegetables? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission not agree that such a decision flies in the face of the quality policies which have so far been promoted by the Commission and the EU by means including the CAP reform and the COM in fruit and vegetables?

| 2. | How is the Commission intending to respond to the proposal put forward by the Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How is the Commission intending to respond to the proposal put forward by the Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee?

| 3. | Does the Commission not think that, instead of forcing a decline in quality, it should encourage the growers of small apples to improve the quality of their produce? Furthermore, does the Commission not fear an adverse reaction from EU consumers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not think that, instead of forcing a decline in quality, it should encourage the growers of small apples to improve the quality of their produce? Furthermore, does the Commission not fear an adverse reaction from EU consumers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The proposal for a Commission Regulation to which the Honourable Member refers has indeed been presented by the Commission to the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, which examined it recently.

In that draft, the Commission proposes harmonising the minimum apple size applicable in the Community with the minimum apple size provided for by international standards. The minimum apple size applicable in the Community will therefore be reduced by 5 millimetres (mm) from 1 August 2005. For small-fruit varieties (20 % of Community production) the minimum size will indeed fall to 50 mm, as the Honourable Member emphasises, but only in grade II (the lowest quality grade). The minimum size for those varieties will remain unchanged for the quality grades which constitute the bulk of the market. For other varieties (80 % of the market), the minimum size will be 60 mm in grades I and II.

The proposal must be considered in the light of new ripeness criteria being introduced at the same time as the marketing standard for apples.

Apple quality depends on many factors. Two criteria have traditionally been used: red colour (for varieties which turn at least partially red when ripe) and size. But other criteria seem more appropriate for assessing apple quality as accurately as possible, for example sugar content, firmness or acidity. These three criteria reveal much more about the fruit's taste, whereas colour and size describe its appearance (even though the two types of criteria do correlate to some extent).

The Commission is therefore proposing adopting these new criteria, rather than minimum size, as the main quality criteria. This will make it possible to ensure that all apples on sale — including those large in size — are of better quality, that small apples of acceptable quality (for which outlets are developing rapidly) are no longer excluded from the market and, in respect of size, that Community rules are brought into line with the Community's international commitments — particularly as regards the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on technical barriers to trade.

Hence the Commission considers overall that the proposal will lead to tastier apples being on sale, which is fully in tune with EU policies on quality. Nor does the Commission regard the proposal as a retrograde step for quality growers — on the contrary, the proposal encourages their efforts by introducing real quality indicators applicable to all apple growers. The Commission therefore anticipates a positive reaction from consumers.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/245 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/245

---

(2004/C 84 E/0290)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3526/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   The difference between unanimity and consensus

The Convention's draft EU Constitution lays down that, except where the Constitution provides otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus. (Article 20(4)). Could the Council please state whether a single country can block the taking of a decision by consensus in the European Council, and what the precise definition of a decision taken by consensus is?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot express a view on matters falling within the ambit of the Intergovernmental Conference.

However, as the question also concerns the present treaties and, in particular, the way the European Council works, the following brief reply may be made.

In the present treaties (as in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) only three voting arrangements for adopting an act or a decision requiring a vote by the Council (or the European Council in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution) are legally defined: simple majority, qualified majority and unanimity.

Consensus is not a voting rule and has no legal definition. It is the way the European Council already agrees on conclusions or other texts of a political nature which are not in the form of an act having binding legal effects on third parties.

In its most usual sense, consensus means that a text is generally acceptable, with no delegation having any formal objection, although some delegations may have reservations on the substance or on certain aspects of the text without standing in the way of a consensus.

The Honourable Member might also like to refer to the outcome of proceedings of the Working Party of Legal Experts of the Intergovernmental Conference (1). The Working Party suggests amending the text drawn up by the Convention so as to specify the applicable voting rule explicitly in all cases where the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe confers on the European Council the power to adopt binding legal acts.

---

(1)  See CIG 50/03 and the report by the Chairman of the Working Party, 51/03, available on the Internet site of the Intergovernmental Conference.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/246 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/246

---

(2004/C 84 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Council

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Statements by the President of the Transport Council after the informal Transport Council in Verona

After the informal ministerial meeting of Transport Ministers in Verona, at which safety on motorways was considered, the President of the Transport Council, Mr Lunardi, suggested that the speed limit on certain motorways in Italy should be raised experimentally to 150 km/h.

| 1. | Is the President of the Transport Council aware of the Commission's plans in the field of road safety, as set out in the White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the President of the Transport Council aware of the Commission's plans in the field of road safety, as set out in the White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010’?

| 2. | Does the President of the Transport Council agree with the objectives stated in the White Paper regarding the number of people killed on the roads in the period up to 2010, namely that the number should be halved from approximately 40 000 to approximately 20 000? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the President of the Transport Council agree with the objectives stated in the White Paper regarding the number of people killed on the roads in the period up to 2010, namely that the number should be halved from approximately 40 000 to approximately 20 000?

| 3. | Does the President of the Transport Council consider that the experiment he proposes would contribute to the objectives of the White Paper as regards the number of people killed on the roads? If so, how? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the President of the Transport Council consider that the experiment he proposes would contribute to the objectives of the White Paper as regards the number of people killed on the roads? If so, how?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it does not comment on public statements of the kind referred to in the question.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/246 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/246

---

(2004/C 84 E/0292)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   European Space Policy — budget

On 27 November 2003 the Competitiveness Council will meet to consider the Commission's White Paper on European space policy.

At a time when our space industry is going through a difficult period, when the United States is stepping up its investment in civil and military research, when several emerging countries (China, Brazil and India) are gradually joining the ranks of the space powers and when discussions are beginning on the Union's financial perspective for 2007-2013, the European Union must assert its ambitions.

The development of space technologies will have major implications: it will strengthen our economic competitiveness, provide the necessary resources for an independent defence and security policy, improve our environmental control capacity, reduce the digital divide, etc. To these practical applications should be added a clear financial benefit: all the relevant surveys show that one euro invested in space applications generates a turnover of EUR 7 to EUR 8.

These factors would justify an unprecedented investment in the field of space technology, an investment which has consistently been supported by Europe's political representatives.

Given the above, does the Council intend to support the commitment to space technology called for jointly by Parliament and the Commission?

Will it accept the White Paper's recommendation that EU spending in the field of space policy be increased by 4,6 %, starting in 2004?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

| 1. | The importance which the Council attaches to the development of a European space policy is reflected in a number of recent initiatives taken in this area, in particular:






  — | the Council Resolution of 27 November 2003 on the contribution of industrial policy to European competitiveness, which ‘inter alia’ stresses the need for a consolidated industrial and institutional approach to maintain and develop the European space industry and foster co-operation between the European Space Agency and the European Union (1); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The importance which the Council attaches to the development of a European space policy is reflected in a number of recent initiatives taken in this area, in particular:

—

the Council Resolution of 27 November 2003 on the contribution of industrial policy to European competitiveness, which ‘inter alia’ stresses the need for a consolidated industrial and institutional approach to maintain and develop the European space industry and foster co-operation between the European Space Agency and the European Union (1);

| — | the signature of the EC-ESA Framework Agreement on 25 November 2003 (2) as well as the Council Resolution of 13 May 2003 on European Space Policy, foreshadowing this agreement (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

the signature of the EC-ESA Framework Agreement on 25 November 2003 (2) as well as the Council Resolution of 13 May 2003 on European Space Policy, foreshadowing this agreement (3).

| 2. | Following the EC-ESA Framework Agreement, the first concrete steps towards the implementation of an overall space policy are currently being undertaken and the necessary administrative arrangements are being worked out to develop close cooperation between the services of the Commission and ESA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Following the EC-ESA Framework Agreement, the first concrete steps towards the implementation of an overall space policy are currently being undertaken and the necessary administrative arrangements are being worked out to develop close cooperation between the services of the Commission and ESA.

| 3. | The Honourable Member's attention is further drawn to the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme 2004 (4) and the Commission communication on a European initiative for Growth (5), which list the Galileo and GMES initiatives among their key priorities. These initiatives, as well as other aspects of space policy, will be further pursued during the coming months with the holding of the first meeting of the ‘Space Council’, which brings decision makers on space matters together at the European political level. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Honourable Member's attention is further drawn to the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme 2004 (4) and the Commission communication on a European initiative for Growth (5), which list the Galileo and GMES initiatives among their key priorities. These initiatives, as well as other aspects of space policy, will be further pursued during the coming months with the holding of the first meeting of the ‘Space Council’, which brings decision makers on space matters together at the European political level.

| 4. | The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission's White Paper entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union — An action plan for implementing the European Space policy’ (6) was presented to the Council by the Commission on 27 November 2003. Discussion of the Commission's White Paper has therefore only been of a preliminary character; further in-depth discussions will take place during the first semester of 2004.
  The financial implications of the White Paper will need to be closely examined and it is therefore not possible, at the present juncture, for the Council to take a position on the 4,6 % increase or on the alternative financial scenarios. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission's White Paper entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union — An action plan for implementing the European Space policy’ (6) was presented to the Council by the Commission on 27 November 2003. Discussion of the Commission's White Paper has therefore only been of a preliminary character; further in-depth discussions will take place during the first semester of 2004.

The financial implications of the White Paper will need to be closely examined and it is therefore not possible, at the present juncture, for the Council to take a position on the 4,6 % increase or on the alternative financial scenarios.

---

(1)  Doc. 15472/03 Compet 77 IND 175 MI 305 RECH 243 Ecofin 393 RC 23 WTO 139 TEXT 25 TRANS 330 SOC 507 SAN 256.

(2)  Doc. 12858/03 RECH 152 OC 589.

(3)  Doc. 9341/03 Compet 26 IND 73 MI 104 RECH 87 Polarm 13 Telecom 76.

(4)  Doc. 14510/03 INST 190.

(5)  Doc. 14893/03 Ecofin 340 FIN 498 ECO 237 TRANS 294 ENER 308 RECH 212 SOC 473.

(6)  Doc. 14893/03 RECH 211 Compet 62 IND 164 TRANS 293 Polarm 36.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/247

---

(2004/C 84 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Lloyds of London

What consideration did the Commission give to the letter from the Lloyds Names Association of early 2003; and what comment does the Commission have on the Court finding of July 2003 that Lloyd's was in breach of the obligations in Article 19 of the pertinent Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has received a large number of letters and e-mails from the Chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association (LNA). Receipt of four letters sent in January 2003 were acknowledged in writing by the letter of the Internal Market Directorate-General dated 30 January 2003. The Commission considered these comments as part of its assessment when deciding to close (1) the case in October 2003. Many comments related to the past situation at Lloyd's, i.e. before the entry into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or had regard to non-prudential matters.

The Honourable Member has not fully specified the Court finding to which he refers. However, in the light of the enquiries made by the Commission and having regard to other correspondence received from the LNA Chairman, the Commission considers that this Court finding could relate to the decision of Lord Justice Thomas in the English Commercial Court case of Sphere Drake v. Sterling Cooke Brown (SCB). On the basis of the information provided by the LNA Chairman, this case relates primarily to matters in an individual Lloyd's syndicate during the period 1992-1996 and was therefore not directly relevant to the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the new regulatory regime.

---

(1)  Please see Commission Press Release IP/03/1386.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/248 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/248

---

(2004/C 84 E/0294)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3575/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU Identity document for the disabled

Some 37 million citizens of the EU — or ten per cent of the population — suffer from some kind of disability. European Year of People with Disabilities which ends in a few weeks' time should provide a fresh impetus and achieve practical results in the fight for the equal treatment of disabled EU citizens so as to enable them to participate fully in all areas of life in future.

One step in this direction would be the introduction of a Europe-wide identity document for the disabled guaranteeing facilities and privileges regardless of nationality and making them readily available to all disabled persons. In my Written Question E-2173/02 (1) of 18 July 2002 I already pointed to the need for such an identity document for the disabled.

Since each Member State is free to determine the scope of the facilities and privileges accorded to the disabled, a uniform EU identity document for the disabled is needed. It should guarantee each disabled citizen of the Union the same rights in each country.

Will the Council answer the following questions:

| — | Has the EU already developed initial ideas about the introduction of an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the EU already developed initial ideas about the introduction of an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU?

| — | If so, will it say what these ideas are? |
| --- | --- |

—

If so, will it say what these ideas are?

| — | If not, does it not agree that an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU should be introduced? |
| --- | --- |

—

If not, does it not agree that an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU should be introduced?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council recalls to the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is for the Member States to deal with identity cards.

The Council has repeatedly expressed its concern regarding the situation of People with Disabilities but has never discussed of the questions raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

---

(1)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/249 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/249

---

(2004/C 84 E/0295)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Presence of chlophen in food produced in various regions of Greece

The published conclusions drawn from research carried out by Athens University and the Demokritos research centre have established the presence of chlophen in milk produce in various regions of Greece, such as Kozani and Aspropirgos.

In view of the danger associated with the presence of chlophen in food and the fact that these regions are industrial areas in which clophen discharges have been identified in the past, will the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the competent authorities have carried out checks in the above regions, |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the competent authorities have carried out checks in the above regions,

| 2. | what measures the Commission intends to take to test for the presence of clophen in food produced in the above regions, and |
| --- | --- |

2.

what measures the Commission intends to take to test for the presence of clophen in food produced in the above regions, and

| 3. | whether there will be a special control programme and, if so, when it will begin to operate? Should clophen be found in food and thus constitute a serious health hazard to consumers, what measures will the Commission take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether there will be a special control programme and, if so, when it will begin to operate? Should clophen be found in food and thus constitute a serious health hazard to consumers, what measures will the Commission take?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

As announced in the holding reply to this written question, the Commission requested the reports from research carried out by Athens University and the Demokritos research centre concerning the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in milk produced in various regions of Greece. However, despite several requests to the competent authorities of Greece and the authors of the report, this information has not been received.

On the other hand, the competent authorities of Greece have informed the Commission that in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2002/201/EC of 4 March 2002 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (1), a national monitoring programme was initiated in 2003 for dioxins, furans and PCBs.

The analyses were performed in accordance with Commission Directive 2002/69/EC of 26 July 2002 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of dioxins and the determination of dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs (2) and Commission Directive 2002/70/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing requirements for the determination of levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs (2).

The results of this monitoring programme have been provided to the Commission. They indicate that the levels of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in food (including milk) of Greek origin are low. However, the competent authority of Greece indicated that the national monitoring programme did not include milk samples originating from the regions mentioned in the question. The competent authority of Greece made the commitment to include in the national monitoring programme for 2004 milk samples as well as samples of other foodstuffs produced in these regions. In the case where levels above the EU maximum levels are found, appropriate measures will be taken to avoid unacceptably contaminated foodstuffs entering the food chain.

---

(1)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

(2)  OJ L 209, 6.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/250 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/250

---

(2004/C 84 E/0296)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3661/03

by Konrad Schwaiger (PPE-DE) and Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Imports of preserved mushrooms from China

Under Regulation (EC) No 2125/95 (1), the customs quota for imports of preserved mushrooms from China was fixed as 22 750 tonnes annually. The quota had been at that level for a number of years previously, and it was not raised on the accession of the new German länder, despite the addition of nearly 16 million new consumers to the single market. Nor was it raised in response to the accessions by Sweden, Finland and Austria. This means that the quantity of imported product available for marketing to a larger number of consumers has remained unchanged. Business opportunities for importers from the hitherto existing Community countries have thereby been reduced.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that, in response to the forthcoming inclusion of ten new Member countries that have hitherto covered a significant part of their needs by importing primarily from China, it will be necessary for the quota to be raised accordingly? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that, in response to the forthcoming inclusion of ten new Member countries that have hitherto covered a significant part of their needs by importing primarily from China, it will be necessary for the quota to be raised accordingly?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that when the quota is raised, an adjustment should also be granted to make good the failure to raise the quota in response to German reunification and the accessions by Sweden, Finland and Austria? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that when the quota is raised, an adjustment should also be granted to make good the failure to raise the quota in response to German reunification and the accessions by Sweden, Finland and Austria?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

In the context of the upcoming accession to the Community of 10 new Member States, the Community will respect its General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations as has been the case for previous Community enlargements. In particular, the Community has notified the WTO that it is ready to enter into negotiations with WTO Members according to Article XXIV: 6 of the GATT. Article XXIV. 6 negotiations are likely to take place for certain products, which may include canned mushrooms.

The existing tariff quota for canned mushrooms has been established and is maintained in accordance with WTO rules and there is no obligation whatsoever to increase this tariff quota in connection with past events relating to territorial modifications of the Community.

---

(1)  OJ L 212, 7.9.1995, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/250 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/250

---

(2004/C 84 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3812/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Tempus programme in Romania

On 12 November 2003, the online edition of the German magazine ‘Stern’ reported a possible case of embezzlement of Commission funds intended for the Tempus programme in Romania. According to the article, a well-known professor from Bucharest contacted OLAF with documents showing that vocational training for Romanian employees, allegedly promoted by the EU, had never taken place. However, according to ‘Stern’, OLAF neither confirmed this evidence to be true nor refuted it. Instead, it has apparently rejected the accusations and closed the case on the basis of an audit carried out on the orders of Tempus itself.

| 1. | Why did OLAF fail to acknowledge the validity as evidence of the documents supplied by the professor in its letters to him dated 26 September 2003 and 24 October 2003? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did OLAF fail to acknowledge the validity as evidence of the documents supplied by the professor in its letters to him dated 26 September 2003 and 24 October 2003?

| 2. | Why did OLAF rely on an audit report by the Commission management of Tempus instead of investigating the situation fully itself? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why did OLAF rely on an audit report by the Commission management of Tempus instead of investigating the situation fully itself?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the documents presented in support of the complaint in question were examined in detail, as were the other items in the file sent to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

With the agreement of OLAF, and in line with the usual procedure in such cases, the Directorate-General for Education and Culture asked a London-based company to carry out an anti-fraud audit, which failed to corroborate the allegations to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission has no reason to call into question the independence of this audit.

After these inquiries and after consulting various European, Romanian and Belgian bodies, OLAF, when closing the case, found no evidence of any fraud committed in connection with the programme in question.

However, OLAF has received further information since closing the case and has decided to reopen the investigation on a number of points. The results of this investigation will be communicated to the competent authorities according to the usual procedure.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/251 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/251

---

(2004/C 84 E/0298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   The milk quota situation after enlargement: Galicia's production allowance

The dairy sector in Galicia is seriously concerned about what situation it will find itself in after the enlargement of the EU. If, as a consequence of what was agreed at the time of Spain's entry into the Union, the current production quota for Spain, which has 40 million inhabitants, is 6 million tonnes, making a much smaller quantity per inhabitant than in the rest of the Union, its relative position may become much worse, since the accession countries will have a global quota of 18 million tonnes for a population of 75 million. In Spain Galicia — the most important dairy-farming region — will become the most disadvantaged region, since its overall quota will be no more than one third of that quantity.

Are these the actual figures for the accession countries? What is the production allowance for each of the accession countries and what is the ratio between that and population? What criteria were used to determine the quotas for each country? What possibility is there that in view of all this the production quota for Spain and Galicia will be improved, considering, moreover, that production is now not even enough to cover the needs of the Spanish domestic market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

All Member States' national reference quantities have been determined on the basis of their actual production over a specific period. This approach, taken when the milk quota scheme began in 1984 and on the occasion of subsequent enlargements, including the present one, avoids discrimination between producers by not using population and internal consumption as criteria for setting milk quotas.

The national reference quantities allocated to the new Member States were determined country by country on the basis of production in 2000 or 2001 or the average for a three-year period from 1997. These production figures were then increased by 1 % giving a total of 18 327 895 tonnes for the ten countries.

Each country's figure is:

| (in tonnes) |
| --- |
| Czech Republic | 2 682 143 |
| Estonia | 624 483 |
| Cyprus | 142 200 |
| Latvia | 695 395 |
| Lithuania | 1 646 939 |
| Hungary | 1 947 280 |
| Malta | 48 698 |
| Poland | 8 964 017 |
| Slovenia | 560 424 |
| Slovakia | 1 013 316 |

(in tonnes)

Czech Republic

2 682 143

Estonia

624 483

Cyprus

142 200

Latvia

695 395

Lithuania

1 646 939

Hungary

1 947 280

Malta

48 698

Poland

8 964 017

Slovenia

560 424

Slovakia

1 013 316

Because of the very high rates of on-farm consumption, which is not included in milk quotas, in the acceding countries, the Act of Accession includes a special reserve of 671 418 tonnes for them (Malta and Cyprus excluded), to be released from 1 April 2006 onwards in line with whatever falls may occur in their on-farm consumption. A decision on release of the reserve will be taken by the Commission on the basis of reports from these countries to be made by 31 December 2005.

Beginning from 1 April 2000 Spain received a 550 000 tonne increase in two instalments decided on by the Council as part of Agenda 2000. No further increase for her is planned at present.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/252 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/252

---

(2004/C 84 E/0299)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3854/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Commission's plans for reforming State aid rules

The Commission is preparing a reform of the rules on State aid. Various challenges are associated with the reform, including not only those of taking account of the statistical consequences of the enlargement of the EU and preventing distortion of competition but also support for the objective of cohesion.

From the point of view of regional development and the objectives of regional policy, flexible rules on State aid are important.

What is the general tenor of the reform which the Commission is preparing? Will Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty be amended? Will subparagraph (a) remain unaltered? How will amendments to the article take account of the problems peculiar to sparsely populated areas of northern Europe, such as the cold climate and long distances and the consequent higher transport costs?

For example, when, as in northern Finland, a metre of ice is broken over a distance of between 500 and 1 000 km to enable merchant shipping to reach the open sea, this significantly increases GDP, but businesses incur substantially higher costs.

The guidelines on State aid restrict the scope for national aid mainly to Objective 1 regions. In addition, exceptions are permitted, inter alia, on account of sparse population.

How will the future reform take account of the fact that many Objective 1 regions in the current Member States will be reclassified as Objective 2 regions? Despite this fact, such regions, many of which are rural, need special measures to safeguard their competitiveness and prevent any continuation of the tendency towards centralisation and towards migration of populations to economically central areas. Will the Commission consider criteria for permitting State aid other than the classification of regions by objective and the GDP criterion used for that purpose?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission does not intend to propose any alterations to Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

As regards the Guidelines on national regional aid (1), the Commission decided on 2 April 2003 (2) to carry out a revision of those Guidelines in due course for the period after 2006, allowing Member States and the Commission time to draw up, notify and approve new regional aid maps.

With respect to the specific difficulties of the sparsely populated areas referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would draw his attention to the fact that the present Guidelines do contain specific provisions for those areas even where they are not eligible for the derogation in Article 87(3)a) of the EC Treaty. Pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty higher investment aid intensities are allowed there than in other areas eligible for this derogation. The Guidelines, furthermore, allow transportation aid in these areas to cover the additional cost of transporting goods, and this despite the Commission's generally negative attitude towards operating aid.

The Honourable Member may rest assured that in the revision of the Guidelines, which is conducted in close co-operation with the Member States, the Commission will certainly again take into account the specific difficulties of sparsely populated areas.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998 and OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

(2)  OJ C 110, 8.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/253 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/253

---

(2004/C 84 E/0300)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3855/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Paolo Pastorelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Airport security

Our lives have changed radically since 11 September 2001. Fear of terrorist attack has become part of our daily lives and consequently public safety measures have been stepped up in our cities and in high-risk key facilities such as airports.

As the present time is, unfortunately, typified by almost daily acts of terrorism, such as the attacks in Turkey and Iraq, the safety of the public is an issue of prime concern. The following recent experience was, therefore, instructive.

A few days ago, the authors of this question travelled to Brussels airport together. After going through the usual check-in procedures and having our hand-luggage checked, we still had time to have a meal in one of the restaurants in the departure lounge. We were somewhat taken aback to see that travellers could help themselves from an array of sharp, pointed knives. Obviously, a potential hijacker could pocket one before proceeding through the departure gate and boarding. There were no further checks of our hand luggage or persons. A potential terrorist — however unprepared — would have no trouble in hijacking an aircraft. Furthermore, we realised that if a passenger checked in electronically at the appropriate desk, nobody would check his passport either at the initial checkpoint at the entrance to the departure lounge or at the point where hand-luggage was checked. Consequently, a terrorist would have no difficulty getting on board an aircraft at the airport in Brussels, the European city that is the seat of so many institutions and offers so many targets for terrorists. So much for ‘security’.

Would the Commission state its views on this state of affairs?

Does the Commission envisage mandatory security standards for airports? If not, what does the Commission intend to do to ensure that such standards are introduced in the interests of public safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Honourable Members raise several questions regarding aviation security. It should firstly be noted that it is not appropriate in a reply that shall be placed in the public domain to discuss the security standards of a specific airport. The answer shall, therefore, examine the general issues raised.

Mandatory European security standards have existed since 19 January 2003 when Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security (1) came into force. This has been complemented by further regulations, one of which specifies all items that are prohibited to be taken onto aircraft in the EU.

As regards restaurants located beyond the security control points of airports, it is the obligation that cutlery used there shall not be considered to be dangerous. In this regard, the approach used shall be no different to that taken towards cutlery provided on aircraft where metal knives may be permitted provided that they are blunt.

In general, the Commission is continually reviewing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 and its associated implementing rules in order to seek high levels of aviation security throughout the European Union. In this instance, the Commission is willing to write to all Member States requesting information on the use of metal cutlery at airport restaurants located beyond airport security screening points.

---

(1)  OJ L 355, 30.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/254 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/254

---

(2004/C 84 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3856/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Contracts under the Eighth EDF

Would the Commission state the number of contracts awarded, and the number of unsuccessful projects submitted, under the eighth EDF, and how much they were worth?

Furthermore, would the Commission state how many of the contracts were concluded in accordance with the rules applying to contracts, whether there were any delays and what costs — if any — arose as a result of arbitration, disputes or price adjustments?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

Under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF), a total of 6 199 contracts (1 851 of which are already closed) were awarded for a value of EUR 8,925 billion. The Commission does not keep records of unsuccessful tenders or of the reasons for closing a contract. Contracts normally include provisions allowing the parties to achieve the objectives of the contract even if the implementing conditions change; it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of contracts met their objectives in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The rules relating to the award of contracts laid down in the Lomé Conventions and by the general regulations on contracts (Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990) (1) are respected. The Lomé Convention specifies that it is the national authorising officer who is in charge of tender and contract award procedures and who is also responsible for compliance with schedules.

Three cases of disputes came to light in respect of the 8th EDF and were still ongoing at 30 November 2003. However, the EDF National Authorising Officer is allowed to negotiate directly with contractors without the Commission's involvement. No specific records are kept of changes to contract costs resulting from negotiations or price adjustments under contracts.

---

(1)  OJ L 382, 31.12.1990.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/255

---

(2004/C 84 E/0302)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3858/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Invalidity pensions in the European Union

It transpires from the Court of Auditors' Special Report 3/2003 (1), on the invalidity pensions scheme of the European institutions, that in 2001, 0,78 % of the European Communities' staff retired due to invalidity.

Could the Commission state the percentage of staff awarded invalidity pensions in 2002, and what checks and controls have been undertaken?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

In 2002 invalidity pensions were awarded to 1,1 % of Commission staff (officials and temporary agents).

In those instances where, in its decision granting invalidity, the Invalidity Committee recommend that checks are necessary, they are carried out systematically until the former official reaches the age of 60 (in accordance with Article 15 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations).

Every individual official subject to such checks is required to undergo an in-depth examination by the medical service. If deemed appropriate, that examination is complemented by a further analysis carried out by external experts.

In 2002, 154 such checks were carried out. Three officials were reinstated during this period.

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the reply by the Commission to the special report from the Court of Auditors 3/2003, in which the Commission announced its intention of developing an overall policy aimed at both preventing invalidity and helping and encouraging rehabilitation, and to inform the Parliament of the results of its work.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.5.2003, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/256

---

(2004/C 84 E/0303)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/03

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Bird-trapping in Cyprus

In view of continued reports of bird trapping in Cyprus, what action is the Commission taking to ensure the adequate implementation and enforcement of the EC Birds Directive in Cyprus?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and the progress made by Cyprus in working towards meeting its obligations under Community law, not just in transposition but also in implementation and enforcement. As an Acceding Country, Cyprus will be required to fully implement and enforce the Birds Directive (1) (79/409/EEC) on 1 May 2004. No transition period has been given and no specific derogations have been requested by Cyprus. In October 2003 Cyprus adopted national legislation to transpose the requirements of both the Birds and Habitats Directives (92/43/EEC) (2).

The Commission clearly pointed out during the negotiation for accession that certain bird-trapping methods, like the ones involving the use of mist nets and lime sticks, are incompatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive. The practice is illegal in Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities have assured the Commission that they would step up efforts for effective enforcement of the law in question. Should problems be observed, then the Commission would raise them with the national authorities to seek their resolution. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to take all the appropriate measures, in order to guarantee the correct application of Community environmental law by its Member States.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/256

---

(2004/C 84 E/0304)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Exceeding of the basic cultivation areas for 2003 and application of penalties

With regard to the problems of maize production and the exceeding of the basic cultivation area for 2003, with the consequent application of penalties, and also in the light of the communication by Agea (Italy) on the expected 18,6 % reduction in the CAP premium arising from the imposition of a ceiling on the area reserved for maize — even though Italy's maximum guaranteed area has not been exceeded — it is now essential, as a matter of urgency, to ask the Commission to rescind the (at all events exceptional) penalties.

The drought of 2003 has taken its toll in considerably higher production costs (as much as 32 % higher than previous years), especially for irrigation, as well as in a marked fall in average production, serving to confirm the significant reduction in maize producers' incomes.

The situation of maize producers is already highly vulnerable, and could become disastrous if further unplanned events (classifiable as force majeure) occur to compound the effects of the expected 18,6 % cut.

What action will the Commission take to restore equilibrium in the maize-producing areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Concerning the request, not to apply — as an exceptional derogation for 2003 — the aid reductions per hectare (ha) caused by an excess production of the separate base area for maize in Italy, it is to be noted that the aim of the measures established in Article 2, paragraph 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1), is to ensure market balance.

The global sum of the payments distributed to farmers under the arable crop scheme is not reduced if the area payment per ha is decreased due to an excess in the separate base area for maize in Italy but the eligible area per farmer is reduced proportionately for all the payments granted.

Finally, regarding a possible action of the Commission in order to redress the balance of the situation of the maize areas, Member States determine the regional base areas (Article 2, § 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 1251/1999) and have the possibility of modifying their regionalisation plan.

Concerning the bad weather conditions of the summer of 2003, which penalised farmers in Italy, it is to be noted that the Commission urgently adopted a package of measures, in order to help farmers to overcome the exceptional drought.

Due to these considerations, a derogation to the above-mentioned Regulation, because of exceptional events like this summer's drought, is not appropriate.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/257 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/257

---

(2004/C 84 E/0305)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3883/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Alcatel Italia: Community funding for telecommunications

From a restructuring plan presented by the management of Alcatel Italia S.p.A. it emerges that two Italian plants will be closed down, although they are both at the forefront of telecom technology. However, there are a number of Community programmes to support technological innovation, such as the ©-Europe programme, which provides for the possibility of subsidising investments for broad-band facilities in depressed areas by means of the ESF. Furthermore, in the context of measures to promote the development of broad band, investments of EUR 1,680 million over five years are envisaged, to be financed partly by European funds and partly by means of project-financing.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | to what extent Alcatel Italia may benefit from such funding; |
| --- | --- |

1.

to what extent Alcatel Italia may benefit from such funding;

| 2. | to what extent it may benefit from funding provided under the Galileo project and the Sixth Framework Programme for Research; |
| --- | --- |

2.

to what extent it may benefit from funding provided under the Galileo project and the Sixth Framework Programme for Research;

| 3. | what other future financial instruments are envisaged for telecoms? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what other future financial instruments are envisaged for telecoms?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

As a provider of satellite technology, Alcatel can bid for providing the hardware necessary to build the Galileo system. At present, Alcatel Italia is not involved in Galileo project funding. As regards the Sixth Framework Programme for Research it can bid for funding under its various subprogrammes. So far, the involvement of Alcatel in the Sixth Framework Programme is limited to a bid related to Strategic objectives 2.3.5 Research Networking Test-beds where Alcatel Italia is a partner of a consortium with 13 other members (the requested grant is EUR 1 240 000).

As regards the co-financing of broadband infrastructure using the Structural Funds, the Commission has drawn up new guidelines (1) which aim to implement the objectives of Action Plan e-Europe 2005 and thus to contribute to the development of the information society in the most disadvantaged regions, which would otherwise be neglected under free market conditions (rural and remote areas).

The guidelines fix general criteria and modalities of implementation for receiving support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (need for a regional strategic framework, geographical targeting, technological neutrality and open access). This document was written for the regions in order to aid the evaluation and selection of investment projects in electronic communications, including investments in second generation mobile telephony in cases where the investment is not financially viable.

It should be noted that the selection and management of projects fall under the exclusive competence of the national and regional authorities whilst observing Community law and guidelines (competition, public procurement, etc.).

Article 2 (b) of the Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (2) allows for the financing of the ‘establishment and development of trans-European networks in the area of telecommunication’. Moreover, the Commission's guidelines of 28 July 2003 do specify that Structural Funds should support regions in strengthening the demand side of the information society, especially the capacity of firms and institutions to effectively use Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

The emphasis is on infrastructure and not on operational costs.

It has to be pointed out that it is up to the Managing Authority of a given Member State to approve the ICT projects to be funded under Structural Fund Programmes.

---

(1)  SEC(2003)895.

(2)  OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/258 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/258

---

(2004/C 84 E/0306)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3885/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Alcatel Italia: possible checks on funding granted by the EU

The multinational firm Alcatel is, as regards turnover, the territory it covers and its number of employees, one of the world's largest producers of public and private telecommunications equipment. In Europe too it is well-represented, with a branch in nearly every EU country. However, in the last few months Alcatel Italia has announced that it wants to close the plants in Italy. The company has used structural funding to step up employment and productivity, but it is not clear whether the funding was used to invest in the EU or whether it was used for investments in ‘emerging’ countries, such as China or other areas outside the Community.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | in how many EU countries Alcatel has obtained funding; |
| --- | --- |

1.

in how many EU countries Alcatel has obtained funding;

| 2. | what other plants in the EU may be closed down; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what other plants in the EU may be closed down;

| 3. | what instruments can be used to ascertain that the funding granted to Alcatel has actually been used in EU countries, rather than countries outside the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what instruments can be used to ascertain that the funding granted to Alcatel has actually been used in EU countries, rather than countries outside the EU?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

The company Alcatel has participated in research projects funded through the Fifth research Framework Programme (FP5) in several EU countries, as shown below:

FP5 Alcatel: Participation & Contribution by Country

| Country | Number of participations by Alcatel companies in EU-funded projects | EU financial contribution to Alcatel companies in funded projects |
| --- | --- | --- |
| AT — Austria | 3 | 429 397 |
| BE — Belgium | 31 | 12 942 524 |
| DE — Germany | 19 | 8 236 949 |
| DK — Denmark | 1 | 0 |
| ES — Spain | 5 | 2 023 542 |
| FR — France | 53 | 26 704 207 |
| GR — Greece | 1 | 248 476 |
| IT - Italy | 2 | 850 010 |
| Grand Total | 115 | 51 515 105 |

Country

Number of participations by Alcatel companies in EU-funded projects

EU financial contribution to Alcatel companies in funded projects

AT — Austria

3

429 397

BE — Belgium

31

12 942 524

DE — Germany

19

8 236 949

DK — Denmark

1

0

ES — Spain

5

2 023 542

FR — France

53

26 704 207

GR — Greece

1

248 476

IT - Italy

2

850 010

Grand Total

115

51 515 105

In the case of financing from the ERDF, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Structural Funds co-finance multiannual programmes based on growth strategies agreed between the regions eligible under Community regulations, the Member States and the Commission, with the aim of promoting growth and the economic development of these regions. The selection and management of projects falls under the exclusive competence of the national and regional authorities whilst observing Community guidelines and law.

With regard to the checks on funding, this is primarily the responsibility of the Member States, which are required to set up systems to monitor the use of the Funds. However, the Commission also has the power to monitor the Funds under Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1). Furthermore, it is up to the Member States to inform the Commission of a change of location in a productive activity financed by the Funds, given that this change could involve a reduction in Community contributions (Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999).

Concerning the funding obtained from the Framework Programmes, the provisions of FP5 contracts required that the results of the projects be exploited commercially or used in further research, in accordance with the interests of the Community and in compliance with international agreements concluded with the Community. Although under the Sixth Framework Programme the contract requires contractors to use the results in accordance with their interests, the Community can object to any transfer of ownership or provision of access rights to third parties if such a transfer is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of the dynamic, knowledge-based European economy or is inconsistent with ethical principles.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/260 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/260

---

(2004/C 84 E/0307)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3897/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Unsustainable fishery by-catches

Have proposals for a requirement for fishing fleets across the world to make use of the latest by-catch exclusion technology been put to the UN Committee on Fisheries (COFI) by EU Member States? What, if any, coordination took place between Member States prior to making such submissions?

What role will the Commission play in coordinating proposals by EU Member States to the next meeting of the UN Committee on Fisheries (COFI) for the use by fishing fleets across the world of by-catch exclusion technology?

What will be the timetable for the submission and coordination of such proposals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

According to information available to the Commission, no Member State has made any approach in connection with utilisation of by-catch exclusion technology by fleets worldwide to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in preparation for the next COFI Session in 2005.

This is in any case a matter where authority to act belongs to the Community alone and any approach would have to be made by the Commission following definition of a Community line of action with the Council.

As we have already indicated in our reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question No 3359/03 (1), although the subject definitely merits attention the resources at present available to the Commission are such that it is unlikely, given the CFP priorities already set for 2004, that such an initiative could be mounted. For the Commission to be able to ask for a proposal to be put on the agenda for the next COFI it would have to be prepared before this summer along with all the technical and financial background information needed to make FAO acceptance likely.

---

(1)  See page 59.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/261 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/261

---

(2004/C 84 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3900/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Trieste-Divaca rail link

Under Commission proposal (1) of 1 October 2003 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and the funding thereof, the Trieste-Divaca rail link is not considered to be a cross-border link, despite forming part of priority project No 6.

Only ‘cross-border’ projects are eligible for Community grants amounting to 30 % of the overall cost and, should this position be confirmed, the Trieste-Divaca link would lose out on a considerable amount of Community financial support.

| 1. | Would the Commission agree that the decision not to include the Trieste-Divaca link among the cross-border projects goes against the interests of Community citizens by affecting the amount of financial support to be provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would the Commission agree that the decision not to include the Trieste-Divaca link among the cross-border projects goes against the interests of Community citizens by affecting the amount of financial support to be provided?

| 2. | Given that the Trieste-Divaca link forms part of the Lyon-Trieste/Koper-Ljubljana-Divaca-Budapest line, what other characteristics does it require in order to be designated a ‘cross-border’ link and included in the list of cross-border projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that the Trieste-Divaca link forms part of the Lyon-Trieste/Koper-Ljubljana-Divaca-Budapest line, what other characteristics does it require in order to be designated a ‘cross-border’ link and included in the list of cross-border projects?

---

(1)  COM(2003)564.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/261 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/261

---

(2004/C 84 E/0309)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3968/03

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Trans-European transport network

In the recent Commission documents concerning the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1), the Trieste-Divaca railway line, which is part of Community project No 6 (Lyon-Trieste/Koper-Ljubljana-Divaca-Budapest mixed rail line) is not awarded the status of a cross-border section.

Under the Community guidelines, only cross-border projects will be eligible to receive non-reimbursable Community funding equivalent to 30 % of total costs. Therefore, should this status be confirmed, the Trieste-Divaca section would be excluded from European financial assistance with that scope.

This is a complex project spanning the border between Italy and Slovenia, and EU financial assistance is essential. The decision not to view this section as a cross-border section could impact on the scale of EU financial assistance for carrying out the project, which would be detrimental to Italian interests.

Is it true that, unlike the international lines under priority project No 17, which is to say the Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava railway axis, the Trieste-Divaca line will not be eligible to receive 30 % non-reimbursable Community funding? If so, why not?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3900/03 and E-3968/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

In order to promote sustainable mobility in the enlarged Europe, the Commission proposed a revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) on 1 October 2003. 29 priority projects were identified in this Commission proposal on which the Transport Council reached a political agreement on 5 December 2003. The Commission's proposal follows broadly the recommendations of the Van Miert High Level Group. The High Level Group examined the possibility to include among the priority projects the construction of a high speed line between Trieste and Ljubljana (Trieste-Divaèa). The Group concluded that at this stage it was premature for a new section to be considered as part of the Community priority project No 6 (i.e. the Lyon-Trieste/Koper-Ljubljana-Divaca-Budapest mixed rail line).

However the Commission would like to recall that although the Trieste-Divaca railway line is not included as a section of the priority project No 6 in the Commission proposal of 1 October 2003, this line was identified in the TEN-T guidelines (railway section) adopted in 1996 as a project of common interest (see Decision of the Parliament and Council No 1692/96/EC of 23/07/1996 on ‘Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network’ (2)). The revised Guidelines' proposal confirmed the entire line as a project of common interest. As such, studies on this section, if they fulfil the conditions provided by Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (3), can be co-financed through the TEN-T budget up to 50 % of their total cost.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

(2)  OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(3)  OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/262 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/262

---

(2004/C 84 E/0310)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3905/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat enquiry: OLAF task force disbanded

As is stated on its official web site, the ‘mission of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is to protect the interests of the European Union, to fight fraud, corruption and any other irregular activity, including misconduct within the European Institutions. In pursuing this mission in an accountable, transparent and cost-effective manner, OLAF aims to provide a quality service to the citizens of Europe’. In view of these noble intentions, one cannot but be dismayed to hear from the lips of the OLAF Director, Franz Hermann Bruner, that the task force which President Prodi announced had been set up to carry out an in-depth enquiry into the Eurostat affair has been disbanded at the behest of Mr Prodi himself. Mr Bruner also said that he had not had enough staff or resources to conduct the enquiry in a proper fashion.

Given the above, would the Commission say:

| 1. | why its President, Mr Prodi, disbanded the task force? |
| --- | --- |

1.

why its President, Mr Prodi, disbanded the task force?

| 2. | whether, during its existence, the task force was able to carry out the task set for it, namely to conduct an in-depth, conclusive enquiry into the Eurostat affair? If it was, what were its findings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether, during its existence, the task force was able to carry out the task set for it, namely to conduct an in-depth, conclusive enquiry into the Eurostat affair? If it was, what were its findings?

| 3. | why it took Mr Bruner so long to make known the difficulties his organisation was experiencing? Did the Commission monitor the work of the task force which it set up? If it did, how did it fail to notice the problems to which Mr Bruner has referred? |
| --- | --- |

3.

why it took Mr Bruner so long to make known the difficulties his organisation was experiencing? Did the Commission monitor the work of the task force which it set up? If it did, how did it fail to notice the problems to which Mr Bruner has referred?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

The mission of the Eurostat Task Force (TFES) was set by the Commission on 23 July 2003. The TFES was required to report to the Commission on the financial circuits applying in Eurostat, the authorisation procedures, the day-to-day arrangements for dealing with outside contractors and the remedial instructions given by management and the action taken on these instructions.

The TFES reported to the Commission on 24 September 2003 and this report was made available to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 24 September 2003 subject to the confidentiality arrangements laid down in accordance with Annex III of the framework agreement of 5 July 2000 on relations between Parliament and the Commission (1).

The Commission accordingly decided on 8 October 2003 to terminate the secondment of the Head of the Task Force and to temporarily suspend the secondment of the other members.

It should be added that by decision of the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 18 July 2003 a Eurostat Task Force was set up within OLAF for the anti-fraud investigations which were within the jurisdiction of the independent office. The two Task Forces worked in parallel and jointly, each pursuing its specific objectives and with due respect for their autonomy.

OLAF considers that an administrative inquiry on top of the current judicial investigations and OLAF's own investigations is not necessary at the present time.

The TFES worked satisfactorily and the Commission transmitted its findings to Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) as agreed by the Presidents of Parliament and the Commission.

In response to the request made by the Commission on 21 May 2003 to coordinate the various aspects of the case, the Secretary-General set up an interdepartmental coordination group, made up of representatives of the principal departments and cabinets concerned by the ESTAT affair.

This group met regularly from June to September 2003. The Director of OLAF was able to inform the group of the problems encountered by his departments. OLAF was then provided with support from the administration to install the resources required (staff and offices).

It should be noted that the Commission has considered the difficulties encountered by OLAF with utmost attention, in particular in the allocation of resources exercises. This is done in the light of the resources provided by the budgetary authority.

---

(1)  When President Prodi attended the Conference of Presidents, enlarged to include the members of Cocobu, on 25 September 2003, the report of the TFES and the 2nd interim report of the IAS were made available to the members of Cocobu subject to the above condtions of confidentiality; those present at the meeting on 25 September were individually given an envelope containing the summaries of these reports and an information note from OLAF providing a summary of the Eurostat affairs currently closed.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/263 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/263

---

(2004/C 84 E/0311)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3907/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Commission proposal to reduce fishery catches in 2004, in Galician waters and those of the Iberian peninsula in general

A few weeks from the beginning of the new year, the Commission, as it does every year, displaying behaviour which in any other economic sector would be absurd and unacceptable in equal measure, has just announced its proposed reduction of fishery catches in Community waters for 2004.

The Commission proposal is unacceptable for three reasons. Firstly, the massive cutback in catches and fishing effort which it proposes — which could lay up three hundred vessels and throw 3 500 fishermen out of work in Galicia — cannot be implemented by the industry without running the risk of full scale dismantling of the sector; as usual, it reflects the erratic, improvised and threatening form that Commission decisions on the fishing industry habitually take. Secondly, these proposals have been put forward without the requisite agreement or consensus being reached with the fishing industry itself, which is kept on the fringes of decision-making; the Commission actually fosters the pernicious gap between the fishermen and the scientists it maintains in positions of lofty bureaucratic arrogance. Thirdly, because the proposed cuts are being put forward at a time when fishing companies, like any other, have already planned their 2004 work schedule, it is impossible for them to amend their projections, while at the same time, they are being asked to slash catches by as much as 71 % in the case of certain species.

Furthermore, Commissioner Fischler's proposals reveal discriminatory treatment of different fleets, particularly with regard to the favourable treatment of the North Sea cod resources exploited by Denmark and the UK, and the negative treatment of species whose catches are of particular interest to the Galician fleet. What are the reasons behind the Commission's submission of this proposal? What reason is there for presenting, for the first time, a proposal for such massive cuts in the waters off Galicia and the Iberian peninsula? What are the fresh scientific reports apparently claiming to justify these measures? Why was no attempt made to find a package of measures which had the support of the fishing industry? Why is the Commission yet again, instead of making strict multiannual forecasts, insisting on irresponsibly putting forward its proposals for the following year in the month of December, thus wrecking all the projections made by those working in the industry? Is Commissioner Fischler, despite the firm opposition of the fishing industry, going to insist on implementing these negative measures?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

There is a firm scientific basis for the need to reduce total allowable catch (TACs). The biological situation for many demersal stocks in Community waters is very alarming and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) in its advice from October 2003 advised no fishing or very low quotas for a number of stocks including most of the cod and hake stocks, Norway lobster around the Iberian peninsula and sole in the Bay of Biscay and the western English Channel. This scientific advice is published as the ICES Cooperative Research Report, No 262 of December 2003.

When making its proposals for TACs and quotas for 2004, the Commission departed significantly from scientific advice in many cases, and proposed lower reductions in TAC than ICES had recommended. The Commission took account of the need of fishing industries to continue their fishing activities, and the proposal was constructed to balance those needs against the conservation requirements of the fisheries resources.

Representatives of the fishing industry were invited to discuss the scientific advice, the need to adapt TACs and the recovery plans for threatened stocks at regional workshops that were held in Brussels on 28/29 October 2003. The Commission took due account of the views expressed at that meeting when preparing its proposals.

The Commission proposes TACs on the basis of conservation needs while taking account of social and economic consequences but does not discriminate by geographic region. For 2003, fisheries ministers already agreed a number of very large reductions in TACs for stocks in the North Sea and adjacent waters for conservation reasons linked to the protection of cod. Consequently, generally smaller adaptations in TACs were required for these TACs for 2004 in the northern area than in the southern area. Nevertheless, some further large reductions (such as for cod to the west of Scotland) were still needed in northern areas.

The Commission views the Council's agreements concerning the recovery plans for cod and for hake as very positive for the stocks and for the fishing industries concerned. It also looks forward to the early adoption of recovery plans for southern hake, Bay of Biscay and Western Channel sole and Iberian Nephrops, which will also afford long-term benefits to the fishermen exploiting these stocks. Such long-term planning will reduce the need for changes at short notice within the fishing industry.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/265 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/265

---

(2004/C 84 E/0312)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3914/03

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Expansion of Palma de Mallorca Airport

Palma de Mallorca's airport, Son Sant Joan, is situated less than 8 km west of the city centre, less than 1 km from the coastal villages of Coll d'en Rabassa, Ca'n Pastilla and S'Arenai and less than 2 km from the villages of Sant Jordi and S'Aranjassa. The airport has two runways, each one 3 km long. The total number of passengers in 2001 was 19,2 million, which is 25 times the entire population of the island of Mallorca.

The majority of the adjacent land to the north and east of the airport is designated a protected rural agricultural and cattle-farming area. Among the countless features of interest in the vicinity of the airport is the aquifer subsystem 77A, found in the plain where the airport is located. This aquifer has a permeability of 160 m2 a day and a water storage coefficient of 6 %.

To the east of the airport are some residual wetlands in good environmental condition, an area of great diversity, with plant species that are very rare on the island's coast (such as wigeongrass — alliance Ruppion maritimae, the common reed — Phragmites australis, and spiny rush — Juncus acutus). Among the species of bird most commonly found near the airport are the shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), the common quail (Coturnix coturnix), the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) and the starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Finally, on the coast, barely 300 metres from the airport, is Es Carnatge des Coll d'en Rabassa, a designated Natural Area of Special Interest (Law 1/84 of the Balearic Parliament), which is of great environmental importance.

One of the decisions to be taken under the master plan adopted in line with the Spanish Ministerial Decree of 5 September 2001 concerns the expansion of the airport in Palma de Mallorca. This expansion affects an area of no less than 596 300 m2, and will therefore have consequences for all the features of the environment described above. Is the Commission aware of this plan for expansion? Does the Commission consider that the extension is based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified, in line with Article 174(2) (ex 13 OR) of the ECT? Does the Commission believe an opinion from the European Environment Agency is needed? Does the Commission consider that the plan is compatible with the Drinking Water Directive as regards the aquifer in question? Is the directive on environmental impact assessment for airports with a runway length of more than 2100 metres being observed? Does the Commission know whether the assessment includes a noise impact assessment? Does the plan comply with the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) aims to give competent authorities the information they need in order to make an informed decision on the likely environmental effects of a particular project. It provides for a procedure to assess the environmental effects of all projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II.

It is hard to be sure from the information given in the question whether the project referred to is covered by Annex I or II of the said Directive.

The Commission is unable to reply to the Honourable Member's questions, it will therefore contact the Spanish authorities to obtain the requisite information.

Regarding the need for an opinion from the European Environment Agency, matters relating to the compliance of particular projects with Community regulations do not fall within its field of competence.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/266

---

(2004/C 84 E/0313)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject:   Illegal practices in use of water from the Segura Basin (Murcia, Spain)

The Spanish State Prosecutor is currently investigating illegal practices with regard to use of water from the Segura Basin, the laxity of the Hydrographical Confederation in prosecuting illegal extraction of water and the favouritism shown to certain businesses. Before the chief prosecutor of the Madrid High Court of Justice, the chairman of the Segura Hydrographic Confederation has acknowledged that most of the cases brought against alleged illegal water extraction had lapsed.

The legal proceedings currently involve the trial of a business group which is accused of using political contacts in order to commit an alleged fraud, by manipulating European subsidies for the re-afforestation of a burnt-out wood, a process which ended with the installation of drip irrigation.

It is intended that the Segura Basin will receive 450 hm3 from the Ebro water transfer.

Is the Commission aware of the large number of existing irregularities in controls on illegal extractions of water from the Segura Basin?

Is the Commission aware of the alleged fraud involving European subsidies?

Is the Commission aware of other, similar cases?

Does the Commission intend to decide the funding of the Ebro water transfer before these irregularities are identified and resolved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is aware through public sources that the Spanish judicial authorities are conducting enquiries into alleged illegal practices relating to the use and allocation of water resources and to the possible misuse of European subsidies relating to the Segura basin. The European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF) remains available to provide assistance to the Spanish judicial authorities in the event that such assistance is required.

The Commission is also aware, again through public sources, that there are many allegations/denouncements of illegal abstractions of water in the Segura as well as in other river basins in the South-East of Spain.

The Commission's future decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for the implementation of the Ebro transfer will be made according to the existing rules and procedures as set down in the relevant regulations, and in full compliance with the applicable Community legislation and policies including those relating to the environment.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/266

---

(2004/C 84 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject:   Counterfeiting

According to the European Commission's customs statistics, 50 million counterfeit or pirated articles were seized at the EU's external frontiers during the first six months of 2003, a figure much higher than that for the corresponding period in 2002.

It is also becoming clear that counterfeiting is no longer restricted to luxury products, but now also embraces mass-produced items, such as mobile phones, toys, batteries, medicinal products and foodstuffs.

Quite apart from the economic losses suffered as a result of this illegal trade, counterfeit products are very dangerous for consumers, since they do not comply with safety standards and are, by their very nature, not subject to any official checks.

Against this background, can the Commission state whether a specific plan has been drawn up to combat this scourge and, if so, can it outline the main features of that plan?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission attaches great importance to combating counterfeiting and piracy. Statistics compiled by customs administrations at the EU's external borders confirm that in the space of four years the number of seizures for infringements of intellectual property rights has increased by more than 900 %.

Consequently, the Commission has taken a number of legal and operational initiatives both on customs issues to do with controls at the EU's external borders and on internal market-related issues.

On 22 July 2003, Council adopted a new customs regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (1). This new legal instrument drafted jointly with the principal associations of holders of intellectual property rights, being more flexible and effective, should enable small and medium-sized enterprises, especially, to defend themselves better and at lower cost.

The other key issue is consumer protection and safety, as consumers are increasingly vulnerable given the changing nature of product fraud. Therefore, new intellectual property rights such as geographical indications, designations of origin and plant varieties will be brought within the scope of the new customs regulation. Such rights, as guarantees of quality and expertise, will in future be eligible for protection by customs.

In addition, a number of the provisions of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (2), in force since 15 January 2004, will help to increase market surveillance for consumer products.

A number of major operational initiatives will be launched in early January 2004. EU enlargement to include new Member States presents us with an opportunity and it is the responsibility of the new customs union to protect its new frontiers. To this end, in terms of combating counterfeiting and piracy, an operational initiative aimed at helping the new Member States to set up a harmonised risk analysis system is currently being examined.

As regards internal market measures, in recent years a great many legal provisions on intellectual property have developed (including patents, trade marks and designs and copyright) and following the initiative announced in the Commission communication entitled ‘Follow-up to the Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market’ (3) of 30 November 2000, the Commission adopted a proposal on 30 January 2003 for a directive harmonising the means of applying all kinds of intellectual property rights in the EU.

The Commission also introduced a series of anti-counterfeiting initiatives aimed specifically at engineering products. This enabled an informative dossier to be compiled and distributed among European engineering firms and an anti-counterfeiting workshop to be held in conjunction with the industry, represented by Orgalime. A practical guide to combating counterfeiting, aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises, was published in late 2001 and a database on fake engineering products was set up.

As regards international cooperation, several operational seminars and a number of conferences on combating counterfeiting and piracy were held together with the EU's major economic partners such as the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) countries, China, Russia, the United States, Korea and Japan. These led to a fruitful exchange of information and experience, and even, in some cases, significant changes to the legislation of some of the countries mentioned.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2)  OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.

(3)  COM(2000) 789 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/268 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/268

---

(2004/C 84 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3938/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Use of surveying firms, contracted by the public authorities, to measure plot areas in connection with participation in EU set-aside schemes

When farmers take part in EU set-aside schemes, the need to measure plots arises when the area of land in respect of which set-aside funding has been requested is not identical with the area on the plans held by the land register.

This prompts the following questions, which concern surveying firms contracted by the public authorities in Germany:

| — | Are there laws stipulating how proof should be provided that the correct area of land has been set aside? |
| --- | --- |

—

Are there laws stipulating how proof should be provided that the correct area of land has been set aside?

| — | In the case outlined above, is the applicant required to have the plot of land in question measured? |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case outlined above, is the applicant required to have the plot of land in question measured?

| — | In the case outlined above, who can or must be given the task of measuring the plot in question? |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case outlined above, who can or must be given the task of measuring the plot in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The support system for certain arable crops established by Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 (1), which laid down the set-aside requirement for each producer requesting an area payment, is subject to an integrated administration and control system (IACS) under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (3). From 1 January 2005 onwards and with regard to the aid schemes introduced under the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the legal basis for IACS will be Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4). The Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for applying that Regulation in this respect has not yet been adopted.

Article 6(l)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 stipulates that the aid application submitted by the farmer must contain particulars permitting identification of all agricultural parcels on the holding, their area, location, use and whether the agricultural parcel is irrigated. The parcels included in an aid application must therefore be declared correctly, and the farmer will be penalised if a check carried out by the relevant authorities reveals over-declaration.

The farmer may consider it necessary to have parcels measured in order to fulfil the correct declaration requirement. This task may be performed by anyone properly qualified to do so.

The authorities designated by the Member States to carry out IACS checks are responsible for ensuring that the information contained in aid applications meets the conditions for granting aid, of which the set-aside requirement forms part.

All applications submitted by farmers must undergo an administrative check. This enables cross-checks to be made, firstly to identify parcels declared twice for the same aid and, secondly, to compare the parcels declared in aid applications against the reference parcels contained in the agricultural parcel identification system in order to verify their eligibility for aid.

In addition, at least 5 % of applications must be subject to an on-the-spot check in order to verify whether the parcels are actually eligible and whether the set-aside rules have indeed been complied with.

During on-the-spot checks, parcel area is determined by any appropriate means stipulated by the authority responsible in the Member State in compliance with the Regulations referred to above. Hence there is some latitude as regards determining how and by whom the area of parcels is to be measured, subject to retention of overall control and responsibility.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327, 12.12.2001.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/269 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/269

---

(2004/C 84 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Distortions in the sugar trade

Could the Commission explain how it proposes to tackle distortions in the sugar trade which mean that British confectioners employing a large number of people must pay 10 % more for sugar than competitors operating within the single market, and up to three times the rate of their global competitors operating outside it? Does this state of affairs not make a mockery of the EU's purported desire to create stability in employment and a genuine single market for trade purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The price variations that exist in the single market for every product reflect variation in the play of supply and demand from one place to another. The common organisation for the sugar market keeps prices in the Community at a considerably higher level than on the world market but also incorporates certain measures designed to soften the impact of these high prices on enterprises using sugar in the Community. Thus import duties are levied on food products with a high sugar content, export refunds are granted on sugar used in food products and production refunds are granted to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries on the sugar they use.

Aware nonetheless that there are constraints both internal and external on the organisation that necessitate a reform, in September 2003 we sent the Council and Parliament a Communication entitled Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP — the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors (1). This presents three types of option for the future of the Union's sugar organisation. All three entail a reduction in prices. We are confident that the discussions in progress with the Member States and Parliament will lead to a solution ensuring sustainable development for the sugar sector to the satisfaction of both users and consumers.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 554 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/270 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/270

---

(2004/C 84 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam

According to recent press reports (see the Portuguese newspaper ‘Expresso’, 6 December 2003), the city council of Rotterdam (Netherlands) has decided that in future housing licences in the city will be issued only to persons who earn at least 120 % of the minimum wage and, if they are immigrants, have taken an ‘integration course’ and passed the relevant examination.

These proposals are unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the European Union, notably those of solidarity, non-discrimination, action for social inclusion and the free movement of persons.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this decision by the Rotterdam city council, aimed at securing the expulsion of the less-favoured from the city? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this decision by the Rotterdam city council, aimed at securing the expulsion of the less-favoured from the city?

| 2. | What measures will the Commission take to stop this decision being implemented, given that it amounts to an attack on human rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures will the Commission take to stop this decision being implemented, given that it amounts to an attack on human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common EU asylum and immigration policy. This policy includes the fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of Member States. The European Council conclusions state that the legal status of legally resident third country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals. Third country nationals should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens.

This is concretised by Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. Article 11(f) of the Directive provides that third country nationals entitled to long-term resident status should enjoy equality of treatment with nationals as far as access to goods and services are concerned. This includes in particular access to procedures for obtaining housing. The Member States must transpose this Directive by 23 January 2006 at the latest.

For other migrants, who are not long-term residents, there is no legal provision at EU level for the moment which guarantees the equal treatment in terms of access to housing.

For migrant workers who are nationals of Member States, it should be underlined that, according to Article 9 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC, they shall enjoy all the rights and benefits accorded to national workers in matters of housing including ownership of the housing they need.

In the case of the measures taken in Rotterdam, the situation described seems, however, to demonstrate that no discrimination is being made between nationals and third country nationals as far as the attribution of housing permits is concerned, because the level of 120 % of minimum wages is applied to both.

As far as the general conditions for granting housing permits are concerned, this falls clearly within the exclusive competence of the Member States. The Commission is, therefore, not competent to assess such measures.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/271

---

(2004/C 84 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3944/03

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Fish-stock recovery plans

In connection with the recovery plans for fisheries exploiting stocks which are outside ‘safe biological limits’ (see Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1)), would the Commission say which legal basis should be used for establishing the status of a fishing company whose catch includes a set of related species of which several are subject to recovery plans, such as cod, hake, sole and plaice?

Would the Commission state whether the vessels concerned should be subject to one or more stock-recovery plans, and on what legal basis/bases?

Should it be established unequivocally that a vessel may not be covered by more than one plan, would the Commission indicate the criteria to be used for assigning a given vessel to a given plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

There is no definition of, and hence no legal basis to establish, the status of a fishing company in relation to the recovery plans.

Recovery plans fix harvest rules that determine the levels of total allowable catches (TACs) for the duration of the recovery plans. The TACs resulting from the application of the harvest rules will be set out each year in the TAC and quota Regulation. The TACs for stocks caught in association with the recovery stocks will also be set out in the TAC and quota Regulation, and will take into account the extent of the association with the recovery stocks. Any fishing company catching recovery stocks or associated stocks will therefore be subject to catch restrictions on the same legal basis as any other fishing company.

The recovery plans may include other provisions, such as the limitation of effort or enhanced control measures. If a company fishes a stock that is subject to a recovery plan and other stocks that are subject to other recovery plans, the company must comply with the provisions of all the recovery plans concerned. The legal basis by which the company is bound by the provisions of the recovery plans is Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, as well as the provisions of the recovery plan itself, which has the form of a regulation, and is thus according to Article 249 of the EC Treaty ‘Binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States’.

---

(1)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/271

---

(2004/C 84 E/0319)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3945/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Use of EU funds for terrorist organisations and checks on funding for the PNA

According to reports published in the German weekly ‘Stern’ and the UK daily ‘The Independent’, OLAF and the Belgian police have opened investigations into alleged transfers of EU funds to a militant Palestinian group which is directly responsible for suicide attacks that have claimed victims among the Israeli civilian population. These investigations arise from the allegation that funds intended for the PNA were diverted to the ‘Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade’, through affiliated organisations in Germany and Belgium. In Germany, the investigations began in Aachen but appear also to concern a cell in Verviers (Belgium). It is claimed that these groups asked for EU funding for an immigration-related project, but that the funds were subsequently transferred to Al-Aqsa, a group which is on the Union's list of banned organisations. These allegations represent only a part of the charges now being investigated by the Belgian authorities.

The Commission appears to have decided to earmark the annual sum of EUR 80 million to the PAN to help it pay its debts to small businesses and fund social services, plus a further EUR 10 million in support of the peace process.

Can the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of or is in a position to refute the press reports concerning the OLAF investigations, and whether these are the same investigations as those being conducted by the German and Belgian authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of or is in a position to refute the press reports concerning the OLAF investigations, and whether these are the same investigations as those being conducted by the German and Belgian authorities;

| — | whether it is aware of those actions or is in contact with the German and Belgian authorities with a view to obtaining information on the course of other relevant investigations; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of those actions or is in contact with the German and Belgian authorities with a view to obtaining information on the course of other relevant investigations;

| — | what checks are being made to ascertain whether funding to the PNA has been diverted to Palestinian terrorist groups; |
| --- | --- |

—

what checks are being made to ascertain whether funding to the PNA has been diverted to Palestinian terrorist groups;

| — | on what grounds the annual sums earmarked for the PNA have been tied to the payment of its debts with small businesses, and whether specific checks have been made as to where and how the sums transferred thus far from the EU to the PNA have been utilised? |
| --- | --- |

—

on what grounds the annual sums earmarked for the PNA have been tied to the payment of its debts with small businesses, and whether specific checks have been made as to where and how the sums transferred thus far from the EU to the PNA have been utilised?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Members that according to the information provided by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OLAF has opened a number of investigations designed to check suspicions of possible misappropriation of Community funds paid in support of the operating budget of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and to finance humanitarian and development projects presented by Palestinian associations or organisations. The relevant investigations are being conducted intensively and without interruption.

The findings of the above investigations into non-governmental associations or organisations have prompted OLAF to report certain facts, not involving the funding of terrorist organisations, to the competent judicial authorities. In this connection OLAF is collaborating closely with the Member States' judicial authorities and actively assisting them.

On the basis of the information currently in OLAF's possession, there is no link between the abovementioned investigations nor any evidence that funds paid by the Commission have been used to finance terrorist organisations banned by the Union.

The PNA has to contend with a chronic financing deficit and has had to defer payment of bills for social security and from private firms, which has put these firms in an even more difficult situation and helped to increase unemployment appreciably. The Union's EUR 80 million allocation is therefore being used to repay the government's arrears on what is due to the private sector and social security payments. At the same time this allocation is subject to the application of essential reforms to the PNA by means of conditions attached to disbursements.

The Commission has set up a technical assistance team under the responsibility of DG AIDCO which checks and approves one by one all the arrears invoices before the amount involved is released. To date a total of some EUR 6,0 million out of the EUR 80 million scheduled in 2003 has been released. The checks performed by the technical assistance team are backed by further verification by an auditor seconded from a European national audit board working under an ad hoc contract.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/273

---

(2004/C 84 E/0320)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Subsidies for pioneering solar energy plants

In Priolo (Sicily), an electric power station of a new kind is to be constructed, based on a new type of solar thermal energy which will be captured by means of 360 parabolic mirrors. The project is known as Archimede. The renewable energy obtained, which the inventor says will be totally non-polluting, will be far less expensive than conventional energy. The technology of concentrating solar heat so as to obtain the high temperatures needed to activate a turbine and generate electricity will be linked up to a conventional power station. The turbine could be fed either by gas combustion or by solar energy. This method should make it possible to produce 20 megawatts of electricity daily, thanks to which a saving in oil consumption of some 12 500 tonnes per annum (the average figure for an equivalent production level) could be obtained. In addition, the level of emissions of carbon anhydride would be, according to estimates, 40 000 tonnes per annum less than in the case of a conventional electrical power station. The Archimede power station can accumulate energy and can also function at night and on sunless days.

Is the Commission aware of the pioneering initiative represented by this plant?

Can it state whether funds exist for such purposes, especially for the southern Member States with their large number of sunny days?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the joint approach taken in Italy by the Italian National Electrical Energy Agency: Ente Nazionale per l'Energia elettrica (ENEL) and the European Nuclear Energy Agency (ENEA) to investigate the potential of concentrating solar power systems for electricity production by using the steam produced by the solar plant in the turbine of the existing, conventional ENEL generation facility in the Archimede-project in Priolo.

This chosen approach should allow a reduction in the investment costs of the solar plant which would use the existing turbine-generator assembly, increasing the electrical power from 760 MegaWatt (MW) (the power of the ENEL conventional plant) to 780 MW.

The estimated costs of EUR 48 million needed to implement the 20 MW solar facility are covered by the Italian government (40 %) and ENEL (60 %).

In the context of the energy part of the 5th Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme (1998-2002), the Commission is currently supporting three major projects in this sector that benefit from an overall Commission contribution up to EUR 15 million, almost equally divided among three projects.

The three projects are located in the South of Spain where, besides the very favourable solar radiation, they can take advantage of the available feed-in tariff scheme. Currently, the Spanish Government provides almost EUR 0,12 kilowatt-hour (kWh), in addition to the electricity market (pool) price, to support the electricity produced by the solar thermal power plant.

Experience shows that the Community contribution is very meaningful for the financial viability of the project, representing an important share of the total eligible costs. At the same time, the Community contribution is only a modest fraction of the total costs of the projects. Only the costs for the unconventional, innovative parts of the project are eligible. Civil works, and turbine-electricity generation assembly, for instance, are not considered eligible costs. This means that these projects need to receive relevant loans to be launched.

The first of these projects, Planta Solar 10 (contract NNE5-1999-356) aims at demonstrating the commercial viability of a 10 MW electric generation plant (and an annual electricity production of 20 Gigawatt hours (GWh)) using the central receiver approach. The project total costs are higher than EUR 30 million, the total eligible costs are almost EUR 17 million and the Community contribution is close to EUR 5 million. Right now, a technical modification to the initial design is being considered to use a saturated-steam receiver instead of the air receiver.

The second project, Solar Tres (contract NNE5-2001-369), consists of a 15 MW plant using the same central receiver approach as the previous project with innovative solutions for the energy storage system using molten salt. The project total costs are EUR 53 million, the total eligible costs more than EUR 15 million and the Community contribution is EUR 5 million. This project started recently. The Commission is now in the phase of evaluating the first six months of the contractual period.

The third project, Andasol (contract NNE5-2001-560) consists of a 50 MW electric generation plant (more than 180 GWh of electricity produced annually) adopting the solar trough approach coupled with a molten-salt based storage system. The project total costs are almost EUR 157 million, the total eligible costs more than EUR 14 million and the Community contribution is EUR 5 million. This project also started quite recently so that the Commission has still to evaluate the first six-month contractual period.

These three projects are amongst the largest plants for electricity production on the basis of renewable energies and are very relevant for the Commission's actions related to renewals, in particular in view of the Directive 2001/77/EC (1) on the electricity from renewable energy sources.

The 6th RTD Framework Programme currently running also offers support for innovative European projects in the field of renewable energy. The calls for proposals under the 6th RTD programme are published on the Commission's Cordis web-site.

Finally, the Commission is currently undertaking a feasibility study for the creation of innovative renewable energy finance instruments supporting the Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition (Contract ENV.C.2./SER/2003/0068).

The majority of Member States grant subsidies for solar thermal energy, in order to render it economically viable. In the case of Spain, the contribution is more than three times the average price of the Kw/h in the organized market.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/274 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/274

---

(2004/C 84 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3961/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Jules Muis — functioning of the Commission

The Commission's Director-General of the Internal Audit Service — Jules Muis — has recently said that there needs to be a cultural change amongst the officials responsible for running the European Union.

In talking to the BBC, he said that Commission officials are judged on their ability ‘not to rock the boat’ and to get along with other people, and he acknowledged that a ‘politeness conspiracy’ (nothing less than a code of silence) exists within the Commission.

Also according to the BBC, Jules Muis said that the task of bringing about change is left to whistleblowers, since ‘people have difficulty telling each other the truth’.

Although he acknowledges the efforts being made by Mr Kinnock to address this cultural issue, Mr Muis says that there is a need for more and better leadership than has been the case in recent years.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

| — | What has the Commission to say regarding the statements made by Mr Muis? |
| --- | --- |

—

What has the Commission to say regarding the statements made by Mr Muis?

| — | How does it feel that the issues raised may have an impact on the way in which the Commission operates? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it feel that the issues raised may have an impact on the way in which the Commission operates?

| — | What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) in order to promote transparency and put an end to the alleged culture of silence? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) in order to promote transparency and put an end to the alleged culture of silence?

| — | How does it rate the outcome of the action which has already been taken? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it rate the outcome of the action which has already been taken?

| — | What does it consider to be the most suitable and most effective ways of instilling in Commission officials the respect for, and the confidence in, the leadership which is allegedly required? |
| --- | --- |

—

What does it consider to be the most suitable and most effective ways of instilling in Commission officials the respect for, and the confidence in, the leadership which is allegedly required?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Officials of the European civil service may make comments in a manner which is consistent with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and, as a public servant, the Director General of Internal Audit abides by those provisions whilst, naturally, retaining the professional independence necessary for an auditor on audit matters.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission is, manifestly and very deliberately, an organisation which is undertaking extensive and radical modernising change. The instruments for achieving the necessary comprehensive alterations set out in the March 2000 White Paper on Reform Strategy (1) have been installed and are operational. The programme for achieving that in the Commission has — from design to implementation — been fulfilled more quickly and at lower proportionate cost than in comparable organisations, despite the substantial legislative changes that had to be enacted and the detailed organisational and personnel changes that had to be made. Among the results are significant financial savings which will continue. Such advances give evidence of the standards of execution of Reform by the staff and management in general and by those who have had the main responsibilities for planning the changes, implementing them, and ensuring that they continue effectively. As in much else, actions — objectively assessed — are more authoritative than words.

As the Commission has made clear from the outset of Reform, the ‘culture’ of an organisation is largely produced by the systems and structures — and, consequently, patterns of management and relationships — that have customarily been employed over a period of years. It is realistic to recognise that, just as outdated and inadequate conventions develop over time and for a variety of accumulated reasons in an organisation, modernised and improved systems, structures, management and relationships also take full effect incrementally and with use rather than instantaneously.

The Commission is obviously conscious of the fact that advances in an organisation need to be driven as well as designed and the Reforms made by the Commission have, therefore, not only provided the infrastructure of improvement, they have also put the means of propelling it systematically into effect. Those means include, for instance, the introduction of internationally recognised Internal Control Standards, trebled staff training participation, comprehensive internal audit, compulsory 5-yearly mobility for all management and for staff engaged in money and contract handling roles, annual individual appraisal of staff and promotion provisions which firmly depends on sustained merit, specification of individual responsibilities, Strategic Planning and Programming to achieve better balance between tasks and staffing and much else — some of it referred to below. As components of cultural change, such systemic modernisations have more substantive effect than could be achieved by exhortation.

It is evident that the reform process has — as intended — been fostering continual systematic self-assessment and reporting that results in identification of problems where they exist, and systematic remedial action to deal with them in a transparent manner. The Commission is pleased to note that objective examination shows that progress has advanced beyond what was envisaged in the White Paper on Reform.

Central to the development of the increased transparency, which is an explicit purpose of Reform, is the system of Annual Activity Reports by Directors General which was proposed in the March 2000 Reform White Paper and introduced across the Commission from 2001 as part of Activity Based Management. Each Director-General is required to provide a comprehensive report on the activities of his/her Services, together with a Declaration of reasonable assurance that resources were used for the intended purposes. In addition, he or she must also set out any difficulties encountered, draw attention to any management or other weaknesses identified, and propose specific actions to remedy them. A consolidated ‘Synthesis Report’ of these Annual Activity Reports is produced each year for the Commission as a whole. That and all the other reports are sent to the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors. The system, now further refined with the benefit of experience, has been described by — for instance — the President of the Court of Auditors as a ‘genuine management revolution’ which shows ‘unprecedented openness’. The analysis and action undertaken as a direct product of Annual Activity Reporting plainly requires and produces frank inter-action and effective follow up. Realities like these factually contradict the Honourable Member's assertion about a ‘code of silence’.

Meanwhile, and similarly, as products of the comprehensive Reform Strategy, the IAS and the Internal Audit Capabilities (IAC's) in each Directorate General have had, and continue to have, positive effects in a number of areas relating to internal control. This is borne out by the very high acceptance rate of audit recommendations by the auditees which manifests the willingness to respond to factual analysis and relevant recommendations candidly and effectively. Such results could not be secured by ‘silence’.

The Commission has also included in the new Staff Regulations clarified and updated arrangements on Whistleblowing in order to improve the ability of officials to fulfil their statutory duty of bringing suspected wrong-doing to the attention of management or OLAF. For instance, where either OLAF or the official's own Institution is considered not to have acted with due speed, officials may refer their evidence to Presidents of the other Institutions. Arrangements for the professional and career security of officials who make bona fide reports of possible wrongdoing have also been improved through the relevant reforms in the Commission. Far from encouraging ‘silence’ such provisions facilitate reporting of evidence of suspected wrongdoing of any kind.

On 10 February 2004, the Commission adopted the latest in its series of Reform Progress Reports (2). That Report demonstrates that, in less than 4 years since the publication of the Reform Strategy White Paper, 96 of the 98 actions stipulated in that document have been implemented and the remainder are being implemented in full this year. The Honourable Member is referred to this Report in order to familiarise himself with the extent and substance of comprehensive reform and to obtain a detailed answer to his fourth question relating to how the Commission ‘rates the outcome of the actions already taken’.

The Commission obviously regards the rapid and widespread developments achieved to be evidence of major progress, not perfection. It continues to emphasise, therefore, that — as in any profound modernisation programme — improvement is always possible, and sustained application is always vital. Whilst continuing to work on that basis, the current Commissioners will also seek to encourage the next Commission to comprehend the need for maintaining momentum and to act accordingly. Meanwhile, the Commission retains realism and advises against illusions that organisational habits are genetic, and against impractical hopes that the full effects of modernising change can be universally and immediately palpable. Effective Reform is, frustratingly but inevitably, a process not an event.

The most productive and important way of instilling the kind of respect and confidence referred to by the Honourable Member is for the Commission to continue to be willing to put the proper and consistent emphasis on the skills and quality of management, and to make changes and adjustments where necessary and possible in order to prevent future outdatedness or conventions that could inhibit the performance of the Institution as a multinational Public Service with unique responsibilities. In sustaining such evolution, the Commission will have to also continue to include reference to practical experience, to future identified work obligations, and to recommendations from staff, from those responsible for internal control systems, from internal and external auditors, and from the European Parliament in the discharge process.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 200 final.

(2)  COM(2001) 115 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/277 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/277

---

(2004/C 84 E/0322)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3962/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Portugal — toll charges and ‘people carriers’

According to recent information, certain makes (in particular, Chrysler and Kia) of ‘people carrier’-type vehicles are now eligible for the lowest (class 1) toll charge when they are used on Portuguese motorways, even though a higher rate continues to apply in the case of other vehicles of a similar design.

The Portuguese Ministry of Economic Affairs apparently once announced that ‘people carriers’ manufactured at the AutoEuropa plant would also be taxed as class 1 vehicles (in addition to the makes of vehicle which already enjoy that benefit), but this did not actually come to pass.

This difference in toll charges particularly affects larger families, who are more or less obliged to use vehicles of the ‘people carrier’ type.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | Is the Commission aware that, in Portugal, different motorway toll charges exist for ‘people carrier’-type vehicles? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission aware that, in Portugal, different motorway toll charges exist for ‘people carrier’-type vehicles?

| — | What view does the Commission take of this situation in the light of the principles of nondiscrimination and competition on equal terms within the internal market? Does the Commission not consider this to constitute an infringement of those principles? |
| --- | --- |

—

What view does the Commission take of this situation in the light of the principles of nondiscrimination and competition on equal terms within the internal market? Does the Commission not consider this to constitute an infringement of those principles?

| — | What action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) in order to put an end to this state of affairs which not only constitutes unfair competition but also penalises many large families? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) in order to put an end to this state of affairs which not only constitutes unfair competition but also penalises many large families?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The specific Community legal instrument for the levying of taxes, tolls and user charges is Directive 1999/62/EC (1). It is targeted only to heavy goods vehicles of 12 tonnes and more. It is to be underlined that Member States levying tolls on vehicles below 12 tonnes, including private cars, do not have to comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC as such tolls fall outside its scope.

Whether other vehicles than those covered by Directive 1999/62/EC are tolled or not, is a matter of subsidiarity, where Member States can make more efficient decisions taking into account local circumstances. In any case, the tolls are as a rule related with the characteristics of vehicles and the conditions of use of the toll road: bigger vehicles normally pay more, polluting vehicles may pay more, peak time users often pay more, etc.

The Commission is not aware of the exact conditions of the tolls applicable in Portugal to various models of large passenger vehicles the Honourable Member is referring to. The Commission will contact the Portuguese Authorities in order to clarify this point.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/278 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/278

---

(2004/C 84 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3979/03

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Planning amnesty in Ibiza

The government of the Balearic Islands is set to adopt a draft act on taxation and administrative measures on 18 December 2003. Additional clause No 18 to this draft act makes it quite clear that existing isolated single-family dwellings in protected coastal areas on the island of Ibiza could be granted legal status provided that:

| (a) | the dwelling is not located inside the 250-metre-wide coastal fringe contiguous to the shoreline; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the dwelling is not located inside the 250-metre-wide coastal fringe contiguous to the shoreline;

| (b) | the dwelling is located below the height of 250 metres above sea level; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the dwelling is located below the height of 250 metres above sea level;

| (c) | the dwelling is not located in a Zone A area within the meaning of the subsidiary planning regulations definitively adopted by the government of the Balearic Islands on 26 July 1990; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the dwelling is not located in a Zone A area within the meaning of the subsidiary planning regulations definitively adopted by the government of the Balearic Islands on 26 July 1990;

| (d) | and the application for the granting of legal status is accompanied by a landscape restoration plan specifically designed to reduce the dwelling's impact. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

and the application for the granting of legal status is accompanied by a landscape restoration plan specifically designed to reduce the dwelling's impact.

There has, since 1991, been a house at Santa Agnès de Corona, located in an area of special natural interest. The area is also a Site of Community Importance (SCI) and a Special Bird Protection Area (SBPA). The aforementioned draft act stipulates that construction is not permitted on a mountain top, which is precisely where the house is located. The Law on Nature Conservancy Areas adopted by the government of the Balearic Islands in 1991 also prohibits any construction on mountain tops. There is also a series of EU directives regulating protected areas of this type.

Does the Commission consider measures such as this planning amnesty to infringe in any way Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora? What measures has the Commission envisaged for situations that infringe the general principle of long-term sustainable development, especially in cases such as this involving an area of special natural interest and hence a natural habitat of Community interest?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The facts raised by the Honourable Member refer to land use regulations that fall beyond the scope of the intervention powers of the Commission. As a matter of fact, Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), applies to any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site but likely to have a significant effect thereon. The Commission does not deem that administrative measures aimed at granting legal status to an isolated single-family dwelling within a Natura 2000 site can be considered as a plan or a project in the light of Article 6 of the aforementioned Council Directive. Moreover, the Honourable Member states that the house at Santa Agnès de Corona was built in 1991, three years before Directive 92/43/EEC came into force and nine years before the Spanish authorities designated the area Site of Community Importance ES0000241 (Costa dels Amunts) — September 2000. Consequently, the Commission considers that this measure does not infringe Council Directive 92/43/EEC in any way.

The Commission, in its role of guardian of the Treaties, supervises compliance of the provisions of Community Law by Member States and takes action whenever there is evidence of an infringement, in particular if Natura 2000 sites are concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/279 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/279

---

(2004/C 84 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3988/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes and Eurostat

In his Eurostat Briefing Note of 24 September 2003 the Commission's Internal Auditor, Mr Muis, reported occurrences which suggested that there had been doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes's office and the Eurostat Directorate-General. According to the report, information about the existence of a slush fund in connection with the datashops was contained in the draft of a note sent by Eurostat to Solbes's office in summer 2002. This information was no longer included in the final version of the note.

In his report Mr Muis writes: ‘The reasons for the omission of this key information remain unclear. According to the responsible Commissioner's Cabinet, upon receipt of the draft note, it requested that some formal changes be made and that the text relating to a specific contractor be clarified. According to the Cabinet, no request was made by them to remove the above key issues relating to datashops’. In a note sent to the Budgetary Control Committee on 15 November 2003 entitled ‘Eurostat: les accusations et les griefs’, Mr Franchet says that he gave instructions in summer 2002 to inform Mr Solbes's office of all the occurrences reported to OLAF.

Can the Commission provide me with copies of the abovementioned draft and the final version of the note?

What steps has the Commission taken to discover who was responsible for removing the references to the slush fund? Was an administrative investigation carried out into this matter? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome?

Is it common practice in the Commission for Commissioners' offices to negotiate with the services involved on the content of notes sent to them on the basis of drafts, or was this case an exception?

Was the Commissioner responsible aware of these negotiations? Does the official responsible for the negotiations with Eurostat on the content of the note still work in Mr Solbes's office?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The draft and final note mentioned by the Honourable Member were transmitted by the Commission on 2 December 2003, under the provisions of the Annex III, Article 3.2 of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 to the chairwoman of the Committee on Budgetary Control Mrs Theato and to Mr Bayona, 2002 general discharge rapporteur, and Mr Casaca, 2001 general discharge rapporteur.

The sequence of events, which has been reconstructed on the basis of the questioning of those involved and the findings of the IAS, was communicated in a letter from the Commission that same day to the same three members.

The sequence of events has also been described in the joint reply given by the Commission to Written Questions E-0169/04 to E-0171/04 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1) and to the PE 338.732/FIN questionnaire on the Discharge for 2002 — general budget.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is investigating the events at Eurostat and the Commission will consider whether a further administrative inquiry is appropriate in the light of the outcome of the inquiry by OLAF.

There was no negotiation involved in this matter. It is usual practice to ask for clarifications and further explanations with regard to a text prepared by the services.

Concerning the final question, as said above, no negotiations took place. The cabinet member responsible for Eurostat at the time has since left the cabinet.

---

(1)  See page 327.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/280 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/280

---

(2004/C 84 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3994/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Culture and languages programme

The framework programme for culture and languages, with a total budget of EUR 39 million, includes among its objectives the promotion of cultural dialogue and of mutual awareness, on the part of the peoples of Europe, of each other's culture and history.

Can the Commission enumerate and identify the projects funded in 2002, and provide information on their success?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a full, detailed list of all projects supported by the Culture 2000 programme in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (together with the beneficiaries, partners and amounts granted) is available on Internet at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/280 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/280

---

(2004/C 84 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3995/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Projects relating to the information society

An action was proposed, under the fifth framework programme for research, relating to measurements and tests, with five calls for proposals over the period July 1999 to March 2002, to be covered by a total budget of EUR 46 million.

Can the Commission supply the names and nationalities of the successful candidates, and state the number of projects rejected and the grounds for rejection? Can it also state whether the results obtained have been verified?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The ‘Competitive and sustainable growth’ specific programme (5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) 1998-2002) generated over 2 400 contracts of which 245 were in the Generic Activity Measurements and Testing.

The Honourable Member's question relates to the five dedicated calls published in the Generic Activity Measurements and Testing with an indicative budget of EUR 47 million.

In total, 75 projects with a total Community contribution of EUR 56 million have been funded as a result of the five consecutive dedicated calls of the 5th Framework Programme for RTD. Details of all the projects are given in the projects database on the Cordis website (http://www.cordis.lu).

Sixty proposals have not received funding either because the independent evaluators judged them to be of insufficient quality or because a competing proposal for the same topic was judged to be of better quality.

Most of the contracts are still active and the outcome will be included in an on-going exercise that is examining the results and the socio-economic impact of finished projects from the Competitive and Sustainable Growth programme.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/281

---

(2004/C 84 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   New work methods and development of e-commerce

The key action relating to the creation of new work methods and the development of e-commerce provided for under the fifth framework programme for research included a number of calls for proposals for the period 1999-2001.

Can the Commission state how many such calls were published, with the names of the successful candidates and the sums allocated to each project approved? Has action been taken to verify the success of the actions?

Answer given by Mr. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

During the period indicated (1999-2001), there were nine calls for proposal related to key action II: new working methods and development of electronic commerce.

The information related to the projects resulting from these calls can be found on the Cordis website (1), where it is possible to carry out research by key action, by country, by contract type and by partner type.

Another address (2) provides access to another document giving an overview of the activities of key action II during the period concerned.

The impact assessment of the activities of the Information Society Technologies (IST) taken as a whole, including the key action II, is underway and the corresponding report will be available at the end of April 2004 in a preliminary form and at the end of October 2004 in the final version.

---

(1)  http://www.cordis.lu/ist/projects/projects.htm

(2)  http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka2/report.htm#ar2001

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/281

---

(2004/C 84 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Draught in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube

The Van Miert report calls for a draught of 2,5 metres throughout the whole year in the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube but this cannot be achieved without damming stages that would destroy the most important water meadow ecosystem in southern Germany,

What is the Commission's assessment of the following points:

| 1. | Damning stages on the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube are incompatible with both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and are in breach of the ‘no deterioration’ clause in the EU water framework directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Damning stages on the Vilshofen-Straubing section of the Danube are incompatible with both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and are in breach of the ‘no deterioration’ clause in the EU water framework directive;

| 2. | On 7 June 2002, after a wide-ranging hearing of experts, the Bundestag rejected damning stages on environmental and economic grounds and voted by a clear majority for river improvement works in line with Variant A; |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 7 June 2002, after a wide-ranging hearing of experts, the Bundestag rejected damning stages on environmental and economic grounds and voted by a clear majority for river improvement works in line with Variant A;

| 3. | The recommendations made by the Danube Commission for the section from Vienna to the Black Sea provide merely for a navigable channel of 2,5 m during 94 % of the shipping season; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The recommendations made by the Danube Commission for the section from Vienna to the Black Sea provide merely for a navigable channel of 2,5 m during 94 % of the shipping season;

| 4. | Creating a guaranteed draught of 2,5 m for the whole year in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romanian would destroy the last natural river landscape? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Creating a guaranteed draught of 2,5 m for the whole year in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romanian would destroy the last natural river landscape?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the area concerned is designated as pSCI (proposed site of Community importance) according to the Habitats Directive (1). The site DE 7142301 ‘Donauauen zwischen Straubing und Vilshofen’ Stretches along the Danube with an area of 4 548 hectares (ha).

Neither the Habitats Directive nor the Birds Directive (2) prohibits projects like water regulating measures. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides procedures and conditions for assessing projects that might have an impact on protected areas. For the time being, the Commission has no evidence to suspect that Community legislation has not been respected. It is understood that a number of options have been considered and the variant A supported by the Bundestag is indeed the most sensitive in environmental terms.

As regards the Water Framework Directive (3) (WED), the Commission supports the recent resolution adopted by the Plenary of the International Commission for the Protection of the River Danube (ICPDR) on 1 and 2 December 2003 which states,

| | that the ICPDR:






  (a) | takes note of the European Commission Proposal on Trans-European Networks (TENs) Guidelines, specifically stressing in its Explanatory Memorandum the need for compliance of TENs projects with EU environmental legislation such as the WFD; |
| --- | --- | --- |

that the ICPDR:

(a)

takes note of the European Commission Proposal on Trans-European Networks (TENs) Guidelines, specifically stressing in its Explanatory Memorandum the need for compliance of TENs projects with EU environmental legislation such as the WFD;

| (b) | stresses that each project has to be subject to a comprehensive integrated environmental impact assessment and a compliance with the WFD, including the non-deterioration principle; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

stresses that each project has to be subject to a comprehensive integrated environmental impact assessment and a compliance with the WFD, including the non-deterioration principle;

| (c) | invites contracting parties to engage in dialogue with their responsible ministries for transport and ensure agreement on the above. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

invites contracting parties to engage in dialogue with their responsible ministries for transport and ensure agreement on the above.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(3)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/282 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/282

---

(2004/C 84 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4007/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Earthquake risk prevention

According to press reports (see the 16 December 2003 issue of the newspaper ‘Açoreano Oriental’), the chairman of the Portuguese Seismic Engineering Society (SPES), in a speech made on the fringe of a seminar on ‘at-risk territory’, declared that ‘the European organisations for the study of earthquakes have tried in vain to alert the European Commission to the need for action to reduce earthquake risks in the countries most liable to be affected’.

Can the Commission confirm this?

If not, can it explain the nature of its crisis strategy for preventing the consequences of earthquakes?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

In the framework of the Community action programme for civil protection, the Commission is developing a project on damage assessment in order to identify guidelines on how to classify the risk level of buildings after earthquakes. Experience has shown that private and public buildings need to be classified to protect the population concerned by preventing it from any post-earthquake damage. The project will be finalised in September 2004 and its results will be subject to an in-depth examination with the national civil protection contact points in order to have the guidelines widely adopted.

Moreover, the Commission's European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) laboratory of the Joint Research Centre has since 1992 been developing research on seismic assessment and retrofit of structures performing pseudo-dynamic reference tests on large/full scale models buildings and other structures. The work is carried out in collaboration with Member States' research institutions and aims at calibration of Eurocode 8, to be approved in the future as the European norm for design of civil structures in seismic regions.

Availability of harmonized and advanced codes for design of civil engineering constructions in Europe is considered a key instrument for the realisation of the single market and for increasing competitiveness of the construction industry, but it is also considered a basic instrument to provide for adequate safety for new structures as well as to retrofit existing vulnerable ones.

Given the efforts of the Commission and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) on the approval of the set of more than 50 European Norms forming the Eurocodes, foreseen by the end of 2006, the Joint Research Centre, both through its institutional programme and through support to the Directorate-General Enterprise, will continue contributing to further develop the European Norms which are considered as an important component for the mitigation of the seismic risks in the medium/long term.

Furthermore, the Commission, through Directorate-General Research, has been funding, since 1986, the whole spectra of seismic risk research (earthquake engineering and seismology), through the FP3, FP4, FP5 and FP6 Framework Programmes. In the context of the FP6 Research Framework Programme — Global Change, and Ecosystem, the integrated project Lessloss (1) (under negotiation) will bring together 47 partners from European universities, research institutions, industry and the Joint Research Centre.

It aims to improve the earthquake resistant design of structures and contribute to the formulation and improvement of Eurocode 8 (related to construction norms).

Moreover, in the case of an earthquake, the Commission through its Monitoring and Information Centre can pool the assistance offered by the Member States as it did in the case of the Algerian earthquake in May 2003 and more recently after the earthquake in Iran in December 2003.

---

(1)  Project relevant to seismic risk assessment and protection against earthquakes.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/284 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/284

---

(2004/C 84 E/0330)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4017/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Publicisation of the EU among the blind in the Community

Publicisation of the Community's activities is vital in order to make its population aware that it is living in a community and that all the activities of the EU institutions affect each and every citizen of the Union.

There is, however, a group — one of the most sensitive groups among our citizens — which should not be excluded from this publicisation of the Community's activities, namely the blind.

Can the Commission state what action it is taking to ensure that this group, those affected by blindness, is made aware of the main lines of Community policy, both generally and on matters potentially affecting that group itself? Can it state what specialist publications exist at EU level for that group?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

The Commission publishes its documents on paper and in electronic form. Publications on paper usually follow a standard model which means they can be read individually by an optical character recognition (OCR) system. Nevertheless, the best way to give access to these documents is to make them available directly on electronic files. They can usually be transmitted on request to users' computers. The electronic files can then be printed in Braille, enlarged by a screen magnifying glass or read orally with a screen-reading device.

Publications on the web are coded in proprietary formats which, of course, are not easy to convert. But it is also possible to obtain electronic files which facilitate access.

The Commission has financed research in this area to contribute to the development of systems and tools giving blind and visually impaired people access to information. Research is geared not only to access to text but also to graphics

However, it can be said that the current trend is to publish information on the Internet. For over ten years the Commission has been financing several web accessibility projects, and the various research programmes have helped to satisfy the needs and expectations of the disabled by giving them access to documents and information on Community policies. The results of a pilot project on accessibility by the blind to the official texts of the treaties have been put on the web by the Publications Office (OOPEC).

Moreover, several projects financed by the Commission fall within the scope of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (1), which lays down guidelines and recommendations designed to give everybody access to the web. The WAI is part of the Consortium World Wide Web (W3C) (2), financed from several sources, in particular in Europe, the United States and Japan.

In June 2000, the Feira European Council adopted the ‘eEurope 2002’ action plan to create an information society which would put all aspects of European citizens' lives on line. It aims, in particular, to facilitate web access for the disabled and to apply the recommendations of the Web Accessibility Initiative. On 25 September 2001, the Commission adopted a communication (3) entitled ‘eEurope 2002: Accessibility to public web sites and their content’ (4), for the purpose of facilitating access to web sites for the elderly and the disabled.

With respect to the Europa server, the European Commission has decided to adopt level A (Priority 1) conformity for new and updated websites. Although several Europa first-level sites meet the conditions required for this elementary conformity level, the Commission is endeavouring to bring a large part of its existing pages into conformity.

The web sites and pages produced by the Commission mainly targeting the general public and the media as well as the Community law access service, Eur-Lex, have already been adapted to WAI standards.

The level A conformity logo on certain Europa pages means that those pages, as well as part of their secondary pages, have been set out with a view to accessibility. This policy applies to all new pages and to all updated pages on Europa. It will be reviewed at a later state and adapted to all new versions of the W3C guidelines relating to accessibility of the web content.

The Commission is conducting a survey of the institutions and the Member States as part of ‘eEurope’. The results should be available early 2004.

Lastly, where information specifically concerns the target population, the Commission has taken special measures to ensure that publications and documents are available in accessible formats, as was the case for the introduction of the euro and for the format of the coins and notes.

---

(1)  http://www.w3.org/wai/

(2)  http://www.w3.org/

(3)  COM(2001) 529 final.

(4)  http://europa/eu.int/information_society/topics/citizens/accessibility/web/wai_2002/cec_com_web_wai_2001/ index_en.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/285 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/285

---

(2004/C 84 E/0331)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4018/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Standardised use of the European flag on aircraft of EU airlines

The circumstance that some airlines from EU Member States display the European flag on their aircraft while others do not has given rise to the most diverse interpretations by airport authorities in third countries. This, not surprisingly, generates considerable confusion over the symbolic dimension.

One might therefore think it logical that there should be Community legislation to standardise the use of the European flag as a symbol, on aircraft that belong to the same (European) community. The consensus among third-country airport authorities is that either the Community flag should be displayed by all aircraft from EU Member States, or none of them should have the right to use or display it.

Can the Commission state its position on standardisation? Does it believe legislation should be proposed on the matter, in order to ensure that the EU projects a unified corporate image in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The European emblem dates back to 1955 and is the ‘property’ of the Council of Europe. In 1979, the Council of Europe notified the emblem to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva. As a result, the emblem obtained protection in accordance with Article 6ter of the Paris Convention on the protection of industrial property.

Thus, any initiative to adopt Community legislation harmonising the use of the European emblem on aircrafts belonging to aircraft companieslocated in the Union would require the consensus of the Council of Europe.

With regard to the substance of the question, the Commission thinks that an initiative of the kind, as suggested by the Honourable Member, would require an in-depth prior assessment, notably involving the European air transport companies and competent national air transport authorities on the implications for the organization of air traffic, taking into account the legal framework of the Chicago Convention on international civil aviation.

The Commission is not aware of any practical problems arising for EU airlines in third countries due to the non-standardised use of the European flag.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/286 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/286

---

(2004/C 84 E/0332)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4020/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Congo river basin

At its meeting of 2 December 2003 the Committee on Development and Cooperation invited Mr Henri Djombo, Minister of Forestry and the Environment (Congo), to present the Republic of the Congo's environmental programme, which is partly funded by the European Union, with particular reference to conservation of the environment in the Congo river basin. After this introduction, a film was shown.

| 1. | To what extent have these fine words been translated into practical achievements in this area? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent have these fine words been translated into practical achievements in this area?

| 2. | On what exactly were the European Union funds spent? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On what exactly were the European Union funds spent?

| 3. | Why has the European Union's contribution been reduced? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Why has the European Union's contribution been reduced?

Answer given by M. Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

At the meeting of 2 December 2003 Mr Henri Djombo, the Republic of Congo's Minister of Forestry and the Environment, presented to Parliament's Committee on Development and Cooperation the Republic's environment programme, which includes conservation of the environment in the Congo river basin and is partly funded by the European Union. This was followed by the showing of a film.

The European Commission provides funds for environmental activities in the Republic of Congo through the regional programme for the Conservation and Rational Use of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa (Ecofac). The Republic of Congo's share of the programme mainly concerns the Odzala national park (13 500 km2) in the north of the country. The Commission is planning further instalments of the programme, which is currently in its third phase. Both regional and national funds will be contributing to the programme. Plans for the fourth phase are undergoing appraisal and the intention is to start up activities early in 2005. A further programme for the Republic on its own (Developing protected areas) is also being examined with a view to allocating it a total EUR 2 million from the resources of the National Indicative Programme (NIP).

European Union funds which directly or indirectly benefit the environment in the Republic of Congo have been allocated mainly to:

| — | managing the Odzala national park (infrastructure maintenance, equipping staff, various renovations, monitoring animal populations, park surveillance, anti-poaching operations, developing ecotourism); |
| --- | --- |

—

managing the Odzala national park (infrastructure maintenance, equipping staff, various renovations, monitoring animal populations, park surveillance, anti-poaching operations, developing ecotourism);

| — | development measures which benefit people living in the vicinity and implementation of three sections of the eighth European Development Fund (EDF) micro-project programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

development measures which benefit people living in the vicinity and implementation of three sections of the eighth European Development Fund (EDF) micro-project programme;

| — | training of management and local staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

training of management and local staff;

| — | support for national and regional institutions via the Network of protected areas in Central Africa (RAPAC); |
| --- | --- |

—

support for national and regional institutions via the Network of protected areas in Central Africa (RAPAC);

| — | managing production forests in consultation and partnership with the companies exploiting forest resources. |
| --- | --- |

—

managing production forests in consultation and partnership with the companies exploiting forest resources.

The European Union is contributing more to this programme in percentage terms than it did under earlier EDF programmes, namely 25 % or EUR 14 million of the Regional Indicative Programme (RIP) for Central Africa. However, in absolute terms this is less than previously because the total allocated to the region under the ninth EDF is lower and because the Republic of Congo is now part of the regions of East Africa (Comesa (1) IGAD (2), COI (3), EAC (4)) and Southern Africa (SADC (5)). But the various NIPs will also be contributing, namely EUR 3,3 million to Gabon, EUR 4 million to Cameroon and EUR 2 million to the Republic of Congo — although the latter has yet to be confirmed. Then, given the importance of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for the forests of the Congo river basin, it cannot be left out of any regional programme, and this means contributing to the regional funds for which the DRC is eligible. The DRC requested support totalling some EUR 10 million from the Regional Indicative Programmes (RIPs) for East Africa and Southern Africa. Whilst the IRCC (6) for East Africa agreed to provide EUR 5 million on condition that SADC did the same, the SADC regional body has so far refused, which means that the DRC cannot participate in the regional programme. The DRC has therefore resubmitted its application to SADC and a SADC Council decision is expected early in March. If this Council hands down a favourable decision, the global amounts allocated to further work on the conservation of Central African forest ecosystems will be roughly the same as those granted for earlier phases of the programme and will enable the DRC to rejoin the local actions and partnership processes inherent in the political initiative that is the Congo Basin Forest Partnership.

---

(1)  Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa.

(2)  Intergovernmental Authority on Development.

(3)  Indian Ocean Commission.

(4)  East African Community.

(5)  Southern Africa Development Community.

(6)  Inter Regional Co-ordinating Committee.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/287 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/287

---

(2004/C 84 E/0333)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4035/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation in Portugal of the regulation on automobile distribution

| 1. | At a meeting held on 9 December 2003 in Brussels by the Association of European Automobile Constructors, the chairman of that association (Mr Louis Schweitz, chairman and CEO of Renault) said that, in the wake of the new regulation on automobile distribution, manufacturers would harmonise the basic prices of motorcars sold in the various EU countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.

At a meeting held on 9 December 2003 in Brussels by the Association of European Automobile Constructors, the chairman of that association (Mr Louis Schweitz, chairman and CEO of Renault) said that, in the wake of the new regulation on automobile distribution, manufacturers would harmonise the basic prices of motorcars sold in the various EU countries.

| 2. | It was pointed out to Mr Schweitz (who agreed) that this would lead to an increase in the price of motorcars sold in Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It was pointed out to Mr Schweitz (who agreed) that this would lead to an increase in the price of motorcars sold in Portugal.

| 3. | Since the purpose of the new regulation on automobile distribution is the precise opposite (i.e. to bring about a reduction in the consumer price of motorcars, to increase the volume of sales and to cause old cars to be replaced by newer models, with all the implications which that would entail in terms of vehicle safety and a healthier environment), would the Commission give its views on this matter, which is naturally causing the greatest concern amongst consumers and Portuguese automobile distributors? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since the purpose of the new regulation on automobile distribution is the precise opposite (i.e. to bring about a reduction in the consumer price of motorcars, to increase the volume of sales and to cause old cars to be replaced by newer models, with all the implications which that would entail in terms of vehicle safety and a healthier environment), would the Commission give its views on this matter, which is naturally causing the greatest concern amongst consumers and Portuguese automobile distributors?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission's policy on competition in the motor vehicle sector has always been that motor vehicle distributors, whether or not they are based in the same EU Member State, should be subject to free competition. This approach, which is enshrined in the new block exemption regulation (1) which entered into force on 1 October 2002, helps to create a single market in the motor vehicle sector and enables today's European consumers to take advantage of the best prices in the EU. For some manufacturers, this process of integration of national markets is reflected in a policy of convergence of basic tax exclusive prices for vehicles of the same make and model throughout the European Union.

As regards the point made by the Honourable Member concerning the increase in the basic price of cars in Portugal, the Commission would point out that a pricing policy determined on an independent basis by a motor vehicle manufacturer is strictly the business of that manufacturer. The Commission has no mandate to intervene in respect of manufacturers' business decisions.

However, price increases decided by joint agreement between a manufacturer and its independent dealers, or between competing manufacturers, are generally prohibited under European competition law. If evidence were found of concerted price increases the Commission would not hesitate to take action in accordance with its role as guardian of fair competition in the internal market.

To date, however, no information of concerted price increases on the Portuguese market has come to light.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/288 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/288

---

(2004/C 84 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4045/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Contamination of groundwater in Catalonia

According to the 2003 risk report produced by the foundation ‘Instituto de Estudios de Seguridad’, a third of all Catalan municipalities (306 out of 946) experience a high level of groundwater contamination owing to nitrates originating from excess slurry.

On 1 October 1998, Spain was found guilty by the Court of Justice, in Case C-71/97, of failing to comply with Directive 91/676/EEC (1). The Court of Justice subsequently found Spain guilty, in its ruling of 13 April 2000 on Case C-274/98, of failing to comply with Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC.

Can the Commission indicate what types of control procedure have been followed to verify the implementation of the directive in question? How does the Commission explain the fact that the number of communities affected by nitrate contamination of groundwater has increased by over 50 %? What measures will the Commission take to solve this problem, which affects a third of all Catalan municipalities, without endangering their populations? Does it consider these circumstances to square with transferring water from the Ebro to other parts of Spain?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Pursuant to the judgements of the European Court of Justice in cases C-71/97 and C-274/98, Spain has adopted different measures to ensure compliance with the provisions of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, hereafter ‘Nitrates Directive’. Nonetheless, the Commission, in exercising its controlling powers, has subsequently observed that these measures might be insufficient.

Regarding the situation in Catalonia, it should be noted that the Spanish authorities designated six Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) in 1998 (2) within this Autonomous Community. According to the Commission Assessment, further designations were required in Catalonia.

The proper designation of NVZs represents the first step to controlling nitrate pollution. Appropriate action programmes should be established in NVZs, ensuring the implementation of a comprehensive set of measures for fertilisation, soil management, livestock manure management and the compulsory application of the Code of Agricultural Practice.

The Autonomous Community of Catalonia has established a Code of Good agricultural practice (3), an Action Programme in designated NVZs (4), and a Decree on manure management (5). However, the effects of the measures on water quality, in particular in the case of groundwater, could be expected to be significant only after some time, due to the ‘tank effect’ of soil and groundwater. Moreover, according to the Commission Assessment, the Action Programme of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia needs to be improved to bring it fully in line with the Nitrates Directive.

In the main, the amendments required could be summarised as follows:

| — | a reduction in total nitrogen application rates, at present very high for some crops; |
| --- | --- |

—

a reduction in total nitrogen application rates, at present very high for some crops;

| — | an indication of minimum storage capacity for livestock manure with, for example, a six-month guidance value (6) (including reference values for calculation of compliance), as the present provisions linking the minimum storage capacity to the fertilisation plan requirements are too vague); |
| --- | --- |

—

an indication of minimum storage capacity for livestock manure with, for example, a six-month guidance value (6) (including reference values for calculation of compliance), as the present provisions linking the minimum storage capacity to the fertilisation plan requirements are too vague);

| — | a quantification of maximum allowable nitrogen volatilisation losses for animal manure as mentioned in Decree 220/2001, Annex (e); |
| --- | --- |

—

a quantification of maximum allowable nitrogen volatilisation losses for animal manure as mentioned in Decree 220/2001, Annex (e);

| — | a definition of minimum nitrogen efficiency requirements in the application of livestock manure; |
| --- | --- |

—

a definition of minimum nitrogen efficiency requirements in the application of livestock manure;

| — | compliance with the 170 kilogram (kg) N per hectare (ha) limit for livestock manure (210 kg/ha is foreseen in the Action Programme and no modification has been communicated to the Commission since December 2002, the deadline set for the entry into force of the 170 kg/ha N standard). |
| --- | --- |

—

compliance with the 170 kilogram (kg) N per hectare (ha) limit for livestock manure (210 kg/ha is foreseen in the Action Programme and no modification has been communicated to the Commission since December 2002, the deadline set for the entry into force of the 170 kg/ha N standard).

Pursuant to these verifications, the Commission has taken action to ensure that the provisions of Directive 91/676/EEC are correctly applied by the Spanish authorities. Following Commission intervention, the Spanish authorities have announced their intention to amend the Action Programme established by the Autonomous Community of Catalonia.

Finally, the Commission does not see any link between this case and the project to transfer water from the Ebro to other parts of Spain.

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(2)  Decree No 283 of 21 October 1998.

(3)  Orden de 22 de Octobre de 1998 DOGC 2761, 9 November 1998.

(4)  Decree No 205, 13 June 2000.

(5)  Decree 220/2001, 1 August 2001, DOCG 3477 of 7 August 2001.

(6)  At present the reference to a minimum storage capacity of four to six months is made in the code of good agricultural practice (paragraph 8.2.l.b), which implementation is obligatory in NVZs.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/289 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/289

---

(2004/C 84 E/0335)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4046/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Software and filtering systems

In October 2000, the European Commission issued, in connection with the programme relating to safe use of the Internet, a call for proposals for projects to demonstrate filtering software and services, with a budget allocation of EUR 5 million. Can the Commission reveal which companies were awarded this contract and the amounts allotted to them? What results have been achieved?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Information about all projects funded by the Safer Internet Action Plan, including the funding per project and the names of the beneficiaries, can be found on the Europa Web site at (http://europa.eu.int/iap).

The results of those filtering projects which are completed are archived at this site.

Four out of five of the first group of projects have given rise to results which are being developed further by the partners. The ICRAsafe (1) project produced a new content rating system with the backing of major industry players. A number of advanced filtering products developed by the projects are expected to be released in the near future.

---

(1)  Internet Content Rating Association.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/290 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/290

---

(2004/C 84 E/0336)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4047/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Safe use of the Internet

The programme for safe use of the Internet and new online technologies provided for a series of actions. One of these actions aimed to promote a safe Internet environment via the creation of a network enabling information to be received from the public regarding illegal content and information to be provided to users with regard to that possibility. Can the Commission reveal which company or companies were awarded this contract and the amounts allotted to them? Does the Commission plan to evaluate the results obtained, the impact on the public and the level of publicity achieved?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Information about all projects funded by the Safer Internet Action Plan, including the funding per project and the names of the beneficiaries, can be found on the Europa Web site at (http://europa.eu.int/iap).

Hotlines take reports from the public about illegal content on the Internet and pass them on to the appropriate body (police, Internet Service Provider or another hotline).

The European network of hotlines consists of the umbrella body, the Inhope Association and 16 hotlines in 14 countries which have received funding under Safer Internet, together with associates in the United Sates, Australia and South Korea.

They receive a steadily increasing number of reports from the public (91 656 reports over a six month period of which 62 % related to child pornography), and have a number of notable successes in alerting police thus enabling them to track down criminals.

Operation Marcy, in October 2003, was the result of a tip to the German police with the co-operation of Spanish and German hotlines. It cracked one of the largest global child pornography networks involving some 26,500 Internet users in 166 countries.

An evaluation of the Safer Internet Action Plan 1999-2002 by outside contractors has been communicated to the Parliament with the Commission's reaction (1). According to this report, European networking of the hotlines was considered to be extremely important and, in terms of value for money, the hotlines are seen to have been a good investment.

A further evaluation will take place at the end of 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 653 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/291 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/291

---

(2004/C 84 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4048/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   EDF budgetisation

Would the Commission agree that if a sub-heading was put in place for ODA in Heading 4, it would increase visibility of EU efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and provide an easy way to monitor the Monterrey commitments? Furthermore, would the Commission agree that a sub-heading would also provide the possibility of increasing coherence among the EU's external actions, and provide some guarantee to the ACP states that appropriations would be used for their original purpose?

To what extent does the Commission believe that such a sub-heading could be strengthened by ring-fencing EDF resources through a co-decided financial regulation, and creation of budgetary procedures that would not compromise the partnership, ownership and joint management of the Cotonou Agreement?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission shares the concern for transparency in the budget and for maintaining the partnership, ownership and joint management of the Cotonou Agreement.

However, it does not believe that the creation of a separate sub-heading in Heading 4 would help to achieve these objectives, assuming that budgetisation of all aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States is decided, for the following reasons:

| — | About 95 % of commitments under heading 4 of the budget and under the European Development Fund (EDF) combined already qualify as Official Development Assistance (ODA). Putting in place in the post-2006 financial framework, an ODA sub-heading therefore would not bring any value added; |
| --- | --- |

—

About 95 % of commitments under heading 4 of the budget and under the European Development Fund (EDF) combined already qualify as Official Development Assistance (ODA). Putting in place in the post-2006 financial framework, an ODA sub-heading therefore would not bring any value added;

| — | Budget appropriations (inputs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (results) are linked to a certain extent, but have to be treated separately. Achievement of the MDGs is monitored at the level of the beneficiary country; |
| --- | --- |

—

Budget appropriations (inputs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (results) are linked to a certain extent, but have to be treated separately. Achievement of the MDGs is monitored at the level of the beneficiary country;

| — | The amounts reported to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) already provide the appropriate basis for monitoring the Monterrey commitments in relation to Community aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

The amounts reported to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) already provide the appropriate basis for monitoring the Monterrey commitments in relation to Community aid;

| — | The best assurance to the ACP States that adequate appropriations will be guaranteed during the period of the next financial framework will consist of the incorporation, in the basic act (programme regulation) which would govern future budgetised aid to ACP States, of a multi-annual financial reference amount commensurate with the EU's commitments. This means that the external aid ceilings to be agreed for the post-2006 financial framework would need to be sufficiently increased. |
| --- | --- |

—

The best assurance to the ACP States that adequate appropriations will be guaranteed during the period of the next financial framework will consist of the incorporation, in the basic act (programme regulation) which would govern future budgetised aid to ACP States, of a multi-annual financial reference amount commensurate with the EU's commitments. This means that the external aid ceilings to be agreed for the post-2006 financial framework would need to be sufficiently increased.

The Commission further believes that the budgetary and financial provisions, as they currently exist, offer a good balance between incentives towards effective and efficient implementation and adequate possibilities for partnership, ownership and joint management.

The Commission pays increased attention to monitoring and to reporting on progress towards the Millennium development goals in its annual reports on the implementation of external aid (1). These reports now provide comprehensive statistics on EC development aid in accordance with DAC criteria.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 527 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/292

---

(2004/C 84 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4054/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   National waters within the EU's EEZ

In response to Written Question P-3011/03 (1), Commissioner Fischler explained on 24 October 2003 that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary. The Commission gave the impression that it did not have the information requested readily available. In its Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the CFP (2), however, it states on page 8 that more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in ‘Irish waters’. Furthermore, on page 10 it makes reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’.

In the light of these statements relating to national waters rather than to ICES zones, can the Commission confirm that it does in fact have the information requested in question P-3011/03 which concerned national boundaries within particular ICES zones, and can it now provide this information? If it does not have this information, can it on the other hand explain on what basis its assertions in COM(2003) 130 final were based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

For the purpose of the Common Fisheries Policy, the term ‘Community waters’ is defined as the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to non-Community territories mentioned in Annex to the EC Treaty. Therefore, as stated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-3011/03, Member States are responsible for the delimitation of the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Commission has no precise information on the delimitations of the waters which have been defined by Member States as waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The statements in the Communication: ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (2)’ as referred to in the written question are based on the following information: the statement ‘more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in Irish waters’ is based on an approximative aggregation of catch statistics by statistical rectangles presumably lying in waters defined by Ireland as waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction whilst the reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’ is based on information received from the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  COM(2003) 130 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/292

---

(2004/C 84 E/0339)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4065/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

As an MEP I am gravely concerned about the legitimacy of the ICG's reported intention to replace the EUMC by an agency with a larger remit during the summit of 12/13 December without consulting the European Parliament. Why has Parliament not been consulted on this very important issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The conclusions of the representatives of Member States meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 13 December 2003 stated that, building upon the existing European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, its mandate should be extended to become a Human Rights Agency. The Commission has indicated its intention to submit a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1) in that respect. However, before tabling its proposal, the Commission intends to launch a widespread consultation exercise on the basis of a consultation document which will be published in the summer 2004. The contribution of the Parliament will, of course, be vital and adequate time will be given to allow the new Parliament to present its views. Following this widespread consultation, the Commission intends to bring forward a proposal amending the founding Regulation of the Monitoring Centre early in 2005. It should be borne in mind, in this context, that the Parliament had called for the establishment of such an Agency in its 2001 report on fundamental rights.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/293 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/293

---

(2004/C 84 E/0340)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4078/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Galileo

Newpaper reports (The Guardian, 8 December 2003) allege that ‘European negotiators have bowed to US pressure over plans to develop the rival system, in a move that will ensure GPS retains advantages over the European system.’

It is claimed that European officials have agreed to change the signal in such a way that the US will be able to jam Galileo without interfering with its own GPS signals.

It is further claimed that Galileo's performance will now be markedly reduced ‘potentially making the service only accurate to within eight miles’. This compares, it is said, to a GPS signal accuracy of around three miles and the one mile accuracy originally envisaged for Galileo.

Will the Commission comment on these reports, and estimate the likely effect of such changes upon the marketing of Galileo services and the possible loss of significant financial opportunities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Satellite navigation systems transmit signals which are open to all users (known as the Open Service in the case of Galileo) and secure signals (the Public Regulated Service in the case of Galileo). It is technically possible to jam non-military signals locally across a conflict zone, whether they are generated by the global positioning system (GPS) or by Galileo, while at the same time ensuring that they remain available outside that zone.

Jamming is carried out on the ground by the military forces themselves and does not interfere with the performance of the signals outside the conflict zone.

Regarding the performance of the Galileo open signals, discussions have been held to determine what the most effective standard would be for the open signals of both Galileo and the future GPS III with a view to providing the best service to users. These discussions were intended to ensure full interoperability between the two systems and will, de facto, lead to a global standard for satellite navigation. Furthermore, the solution adopted will enable Galileo to improve on the US solution, while at the same time achieving interoperability between the two systems and enhancing Galileo's performance compared with GPS. The target positioning performances, of the order of the metre, are six to ten times superior to current GPS performances, and this is fully compatible with a business plan based on the marketing of the Galileo services. The willingness of the United States to use the same frequencies as Galileo for open and commercial signals is to be welcomed, as it will give a decisive boost to the European programme being used worldwide.

Galileo will be in a position to provide signals for the open service, the safety-of-life service and the commercial service; these signals, which will be just as powerful as those envisaged prior to the launching of discussions with the United States, will also be consistent with the needs of national security. Improvements will constantly be made to the performance of these signals; consequently, the Galileo business plan is in no way being called into question.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/294 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/294

---

(2004/C 84 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily

One of the European Union's main objectives, written into Article 2 of the EU Treaty, is to promote a high level of employment.

Ireland and Wales have been granted favourable tax regimes.

As a result of these significant tax concessions, Ireland, and to a lesser extent Wales, have managed to raise per capita incomes significantly and bring the level of unemployment down substantially.

Sicily has similar characteristics to Ireland — the region is lagging behind its development and it is disadvantaged by virtue of being an island with a population of approximately five million.

Sicily has the potential for vast economic growth but this growth is being curbed partly by the legal and fiscal restrictions imposed by the Community.

Will the European Commission grant Sicily favourable tax status as this would:

| 1. | enable the island to attract more foreign investment, generating greater development potential and, with it, employment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

enable the island to attract more foreign investment, generating greater development potential and, with it, employment;

| 2. | greatly benefit Sicilian firms without breaching Community competition rules; |
| --- | --- |

2.

greatly benefit Sicilian firms without breaching Community competition rules;

| 3. | result in less revenue for Sicily's budget but not affect central government revenue, with the lower revenue in Sicily being offset by greater prosperity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

result in less revenue for Sicily's budget but not affect central government revenue, with the lower revenue in Sicily being offset by greater prosperity.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission would recall to mind that the area of direct taxation falls within the competence of Member States provided that they respect the principles laid down in the EC Treaty, whilst the area of indirect taxes is harmonised at EU-level. However, should a tax measure confer a selective advantage to certain undertakings, sectors or regions, the EC Treaty rules on State aid may become applicable.

On the basis of the information provided, it is not clear to the Commission to which tax regimes the Honourable Member refers.

In general, the Commission is of the opinion that tax advantages limited to certain parts of a Member State territory constitute State aid. Such State aid can be approved under the conditions set out in the Commission guidelines on national regional aid (1). Aid that is not linked to investment, or the realisation of a specific project and which only foresees relieving undertakings from the costs they normally bear is, in principle, forbidden.

Member States have also made a commitment under the Code of Conduct for business taxation (2) not to introduce new harmful tax measures and therefore have an obligation to ensure that their tax measures are not contrary to this commitment.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2)  Conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/295 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/295

---

(2004/C 84 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/04

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products

In Spain (in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia), there is a single, publicly-owned Category I plant authorised to carry out the treatment of meat by-products under that category. This plant belongs to a company called Grefacsa (Greixos i Farines Cárniques, S.A.), based in the locality of Térmens, and handles specified risk materials (SRMs) that are directly related to BSE (‘mad cow disease’) and other contagious illnesses.

The plant treats waste which may originate from a number of Spanish regions or from Andorra. The animal waste is used as a source of animal meals and fats; subsequently, transport is arranged by the company to authorised dumping-grounds or incineration plants.

Does Grefacsa receive subsidies from EU funds? If so, for what activities are those subsidies paid? Are the by-products obtained transported to other EU Member States? Should that be the case, under what current legislation is it possible to export by-products obtained from materials classified as SRMs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Animal by-products Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) establishes health rules concerning the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal, placing on the market and, in certain specific cases, the export and transit of animal by-products and derived products to prevent them from presenting a risk to animal or public health. The dispatch of animal by-products and processed products to other Member States is allowed under Article 8 of the Regulation, provided such dispatch is in line with the channelling provisions of that Article. The export to third countries of specified risk materials is banned under the Regulation, but the import provisions do not yet apply until 1 May 2004.

Throughout the programming period 2000-2006 and with the exception of major Structural Funds projects, the selection of individual projects is the responsibility of the authorities in the Member States, once the programmes have been agreed by the Commission. The projects selected by the authorities must, however, conform with Community law in all respects, including that relating to the environment.

Accordingly, further to the information provided by the Member State, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that six operations submitted by Grefacsa have been part-financed so far by the 2000-2006 Rural Development Programme of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, under its measure ‘improving processing and marketing of agricultural projects’. These operations regardedl environmenta and technological improvements of the company's factories in Sant Joan les Fonts (Girona, 4 operations) and Térmens (Lleida, 2 operations). Concerning the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) the same national authorities have confirmed that no subvention have been allowed to this company.

The Commission has no information about possible transport of by-products obtained by this company from Spain to other Member States.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/296 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/296

---

(2004/C 84 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/04

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies

Since the beginning of 2004, some insurance companies in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have required independent experts in the automobile sector to work with the Belgian loss adjuster Informex.

Does the Commission take the view that this practice is compatible with the principle of the free movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty? If not, what measures will it take to put an end to these discriminatory practices?

Some of the companies involved prescribe which garage their clients must use for their repairs.

Does not the Commission share my view that that practice infringes the principle of the free movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty referred to above? If so, is it prepared to take the measures required to put an end thereto?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However, in accordance with Article 49 of the EC Treaty and in light of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not able to act in this case in accordance with the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty because the facts refer to existing contractual relations between several private entities.

The provisions of the EC Treaty which relate to providing services are formally addressed to the Member States. Although this does not mean that rights cannot be conferred simultaneously on any individual who may be affected by the observance of the rules, as defined here, contesting the practices of private entities falls mainly within the competence of the national courts. In fact, it is established case law that it is firstly the responsibility of national courts to apply Community law and to establish the implications of the case law of the Court of Justice within the procedural framework. Since it is a question of the interpretation of Community law, it is necessary in any event to mention the possibility for national courts to use the mechanism of the preliminary question provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty to obtain an interpretation of the provisions of Community law from the Court of Justice, which alone has jurisdiction in this respect.

If the choice of Informex by each insurance company was made in cooperation with competing companies and not independently, such cooperation could be interpreted under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. This Article prohibits agreements between companies which are likely to affect trade between Member States and which are aimed at restricting competition. However, the Commission does not have any information which indicates that such cooperation might exist.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/297

---

(2004/C 84 E/0344)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Unavailability for commercial reasons of information on insufficient airline safety standards

| 1. | When and in what way was it made known outside Switzerland that that country had prohibited the Egyptian airline Flash Airlines, one of whose aircraft crashed into the Red Sea on 3 January 2004 with French passengers on board, from flying over Switzerland or landing there because of the unsafe nature of the company's aircraft? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When and in what way was it made known outside Switzerland that that country had prohibited the Egyptian airline Flash Airlines, one of whose aircraft crashed into the Red Sea on 3 January 2004 with French passengers on board, from flying over Switzerland or landing there because of the unsafe nature of the company's aircraft?

| 2. | How is such information on airline safety standards that is gathered by Member States' institutions exchanged and made public within the EU and the EEA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How is such information on airline safety standards that is gathered by Member States' institutions exchanged and made public within the EU and the EEA?

| 3. | What can individual Member States or the EU do on the basis of such information to prevent overflying and landing by unsafe aircraft? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What can individual Member States or the EU do on the basis of such information to prevent overflying and landing by unsafe aircraft?

| 4. | Were information on safety checks and the names of unsafe airlines kept from the public and consumer associations by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) for commercial reasons? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Were information on safety checks and the names of unsafe airlines kept from the public and consumer associations by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) for commercial reasons?

| 5. | Does the Commission think it acceptable that airline passengers do not, when booking a flight, have access to information that may enable them to weigh up the potentially tempting price against the danger to their lives? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission think it acceptable that airline passengers do not, when booking a flight, have access to information that may enable them to weigh up the potentially tempting price against the danger to their lives?

| 6. | What can now be done to prevent passengers from again using dangerous airlines unwittingly or to prevent dangerous airlines from choosing the EU Member States that operate the least strict standards before landing and attracting passengers? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What can now be done to prevent passengers from again using dangerous airlines unwittingly or to prevent dangerous airlines from choosing the EU Member States that operate the least strict standards before landing and attracting passengers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

According to the information available to the Commission, the Swiss authorities informed the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of their decision to refuse access to Swiss airspace to Flash Airlines on 15 October 2002. The JAA manage the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) database on behalf of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). The database contains reports of inspections carried out by the 38 member States of the ECAC. On 16 October 2002, the JAA forwarded the information thus received to all SAFA national coordinators, asking them to take account of it in their own inspection programmes.

The EU Member States are participating in the SAFA programme until the entry into force of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries aircraft using Community airports. The information in the database is not public.

Until the Directive enters into force, each Member State has to decide whether to grant access to its own airspace on the basis of the information available.

The Civil Aviation Conference's SAFA database is a technical programme aimed at accident prevention, and does not provide for the publication of detailed information on the checks carried out by the participating States.

The Commission has already begun consultations with a view to improving the transparency of airline identification, and intends to present measures at the earliest opportunity to address the shortcomings brought to light by the aviation disaster of 3 January 2004.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0158/04 by Mr Hortefeux (1) explaining the provisions of the Directive which should correct the failings of the current system of inspecting third countries' aircraft, particularly with regard to public information. It will also ensure a more rigorous application of the most stringent standards.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/298 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/298

---

(2004/C 84 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Amount of EU legislative acts

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the number of legislative acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union in 2003, broken down by institution (Commission, Council and EP/Council) and by nature of the acts (Recommendation, Decision, Directive, Regulation, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

A table giving the number of legislative instruments which were adopted, repealed or expired in 2003, listed by type of instrument and institution concerned, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The data is taken from the General Report on the Activities of the European Union for 2003, which each year, is transmitted to Parliament on the second Tuesday of February under Article 212 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/298 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/298

---

(2004/C 84 E/0346)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0043/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Trade impact of the euro

In the answer to Written Question E-1883/03 (1) by Chris Huhne, Commissioner Solbes made a number of comments regarding the trade impact of the euro. Is the Commission now able to provide any additional information based on economic developments over the last six months?

(Original Question by Chris Huhne: Will the Commission summarise the conclusions of any major studies, including its own, on the impact of the euro on trade within the euro-area? Will it estimate the size of any increase in trade as a result of the introduction of the euro?)

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

In its reply to Written Question E-1883/03 by the Honourable Member Mr Huhne (2), the Commission gave an overview of the results of several academic studies assessing the euro's impact on trade within the euro-area. In the Quarterly Report on the Euro Area published on 30 September 2003, the Commission estimates, using trade data for the first quarter of 1991 to the fourth quarter of 2002, an effect of between 7 % and 18 %. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the euro has already had a sizeable impact on intra-euro area trade flows and that this effect could increase further.

Apart from the studies mentioned in the answer to the Written Question E-1883/03, it could be noted that in addition, an Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)-effect has also been established in studies on trade flows to and from individual Member States.

The Commission is not aware of any recent studies in this field using more recent trade data than the studies mentioned in the answer to the Written Question E-1883/03. However, it is unlikely that cyclical economic fluctuations in trade in the past six months would alter the basic findings of previous studies.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 106.

(2)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 106.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/299 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/299

---

(2004/C 84 E/0347)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0045/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Failure to carry out prior checks and a simultaneous environmental impact assessment on the entire building project coordinated by Impreglio SpA on the coastline of Sa Sea — Tentizzos in the municipality of Bosa (NU), Sardinia, Italy

Projects covering four plots of land for the construction of tourist facilities (housing, hotels, holiday homes, services, golf courses, etc.) on the coast at Sa Sea — Tentizzos in the municipality of Bosa (NU), have been publicly announced (1). They will adjoin one another, together forming — according to press reports — a single project accounting for a total of 350 000 cubic metres, coordinated by Impreglio SpA.

A forthcoming request for Community funding (20 % of the declared overall investment of EUR 225 million) has also been announced.

On several occasions the environmental organisations ‘Friends of the Earth’ and ‘Gruppo d'intervento giuridico’ have requested that an environmental impact assessment (2) be carried out by the competent Community, national, regional and local authorities, since the area is one of the few broad stretches of unspoilt coastline on the Mediterranean.

The area is under an environmental conservation order (3), much of it requiring total conservation (4), and is included in the proposed site of Community importance ‘Hinterland of and areas between Bosa, Capo Marrargiu and Porto Tangone’ (Code No ITB000041) within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC (5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (6).

The environmental impact assessment procedure has now been launched for one single section (35 000 cubic metres in the village of Sa Sea) at the behest of Tecnestudio, run by the architect Gianni Delitala, although the Autonomous Region of Sardinia is also aware of the scope of the project (7), in blatant violation of the Community and national provisions which make a global assessment of the proposed measures compulsory (cf. for example, Court of Justice case 435/97 of 16.9.1999; Lazio Regional Administrative Court, No 1456 of 16.12.2002).

It does not appear that any environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | whether any projects are being carried out or are planned (e.g. roads, water supply and sewerage facilities, etc.) with Community funding (2000-2006 Regional Operational Programme for Sardinia) to cater for the needs of the housing and facilities planned in the Sa Sea — Tentizzos area; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether any projects are being carried out or are planned (e.g. roads, water supply and sewerage facilities, etc.) with Community funding (2000-2006 Regional Operational Programme for Sardinia) to cater for the needs of the housing and facilities planned in the Sa Sea — Tentizzos area;

| — | whether it intends to take appropriate steps to tackle this serious case of distorted application of Directives 97/ll/EC (8) and 85/337/EEC (9) and failure to apply Directive 92/43/EEC as regards environmental impact assessment? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to take appropriate steps to tackle this serious case of distorted application of Directives 97/ll/EC (8) and 85/337/EEC (9) and failure to apply Directive 92/43/EEC as regards environmental impact assessment?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

As far as Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (10) (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (11) is concerned, this Directive provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location, are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 which refers to Annex I and II of the Directive.

Golf courses are not specifically mentioned in the Annexes of the Directive. As for holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments, these are found in Annex II point 12(c). The projects mentioned by the Honourable Member could fall under Annex II. For Annex II projects, Member States have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive. In the case where the Member State decides that the project will have significant effects on the environment, an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member is located within a Site of Community Importance proposed by Italy in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It is therefore subject to Article 6 of the same Directive, which defines under which conditions a project likely to have a significant impact on a Special Protection Area or Site of Community Importance can be authorised. Should the project be likely to have a significant impact, its approval without fulfilling the conditions specified in Article 6 would, therefore, constitute a breach of the Directive.

In addition, the Commission has recently registered a complaint for bad application of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, to this specific project. Should the Commission conclude that Community law is being breached in the case in question, it would not hesitate, as the Guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

On the basis of information obtained from the Sardinian Regional Authorities, the Commission is finally able to state that the works referred to by the Honourable Member were not cofinanced under the European Regional Development Fund.

---

(1)  Cf. ‘L'Unione Sarda’, dated 13.9.2003, and ‘La Nuova Sardegna’ dated 14.9.2003.

(2)  Directive 97/11/EC (Annex II, point 12, letter (c)) which amended and supplemented the earlier Directive 85/337/EEC (Annex II, point 11, letter (a)), Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 (Articles 5 and 10; Annex B, point 8, letter (a)) and Sardinian Regional Law No 1/1999 (Article 31), amended and supplemented by Sardinian Regional Law No 17/2000 (Article 17) and Sardinian Regional Law No 3/2003 (Article 20).

(3)  Legislative Decree No 490/1999, Articles 139, 140 (specified in the Ministerial Decree of 16 June 1972) and 146(1) (a), (g) and (m).

(4)  Regional Law No 23/1993, Article 2(1), letter (a) banning any temporary alteration to the territory of the whole coastal strip north of Bosa included in the municipalities of Bosa (NU) and Villanova Monteleone (SS) until final approval of the new regional planning programme, within the meaning of and for the purposes set out in Article lb of Law No 431/1985 by virtue of Regional Ministerial Decree P.I. and BB. CC. of 23 December 1985, No 3005.

(5)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(6)  Implemented by virtue of Presidential Decree No 357/1997 as subsequently amended and supplemented (official list contained in Ministerial Decree No 65 of 3 April 2000).

(7)  With regard to the projects, files 1042/02, 1043/02, 1044/02 and 1045/02 are pending with the Regional department for the conservation of Nuoro.

(8)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(9)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(10)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(11)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/301 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/301

---

(2004/C 84 E/0348)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/04

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subjct:   Advertisements for jobs in European organisations requiring English mother tongue

European organisations funded wholly or partly by the European Commission, in particular firms with Commission contracts, regularly advertise vacancies requiring ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘English native speakers’.

There are also organisations which, following warnings from the European Commission and others, are replacing the phrase ‘English mother tongue’ with ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’ and ‘English native speaker level’ and then inviting only English native speakers. A full list of approximately 700 such advertisements collected by the European Esperanto Union can be found at: http//lingovo.org/eo/2/15.

| 1. | Can the European Commission take action, possibly by means of legislation, including the withdrawal of Commission funding, against European organisations wholly or partly financed by it, and against private companies that have contracts with the European Commission which discriminate using the above criteria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the European Commission take action, possibly by means of legislation, including the withdrawal of Commission funding, against European organisations wholly or partly financed by it, and against private companies that have contracts with the European Commission which discriminate using the above criteria?

| 2. | Can the European Commission carry out an in-depth study of the incidence of language discrimination against non-native speakers of English by European organisations, financed partially or wholly by the European Commission, as well as private companies awarded Commission contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the European Commission carry out an in-depth study of the incidence of language discrimination against non-native speakers of English by European organisations, financed partially or wholly by the European Commission, as well as private companies awarded Commission contracts?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/301 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/301

---

(2004/C 84 E/0349)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Language requirements in EU job advertisements

On several occasions the Commission has been forced to conclude that job advertisements issued by European organisations partially or totally financed by the Commission and private firms linked contractually to the Commission are discriminatory (see Commission answers to a number of written questions on this subject (1)). Advertisements for jobs with such European organisations and firms regularly stipulate ‘English native speakers’ or ‘English mother tongue’ as a requirement.

Despite repeated confirmations by the Commission that this is the case, as well as an undertaking by the then European Ombudsman Jacob Söderman (659/2002/IP), this discriminatory practice by European organisations continues to occur regularly (2). Furthermore, following warnings from the Commission, the European organisations seem to be replacing terms such as ‘English mother tongue’ with expressions such as ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’, ‘English native speaker level’ or ‘First language English’, and then inviting only people with English mother tongue to interview.

Can the Commission launch an inquiry into this?

What steps is it willing to take to put an end to this discrimination?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission has explained its position on the legal evaluation of this issue in its replies to numerous Written Questions E-4100/00 by Mr Staes (3); E-0779/01 by Mr Staes (4);E-l356/01 by Mr Gemelli (5); E-l681/01 and E-1682/01 by Mr Staes (6); P-2331/01 by Mrs Ferrer (6); E-2900/01 by Mr Staes (7); E-2901/01 and E-2944/01 by Mr Staes (7); P-3189/01 by Mr Rothly (7); E-3572/01 by Mr Staes (8); E-0941/02 by Mr Staes (9); E-2764/02 by Mr Staes (10); E-l733/03 by Mr Leinen (11); E-2018/03 by Mr Staes (12); E-2226/03 by Mr Rübig (12). The Commission would like to add that it considers also the terms ‘native speaker level’ and ‘First language (+ mentioning a specific EU language)’ as a violation of the rules on free movement of workers.

In its replies to the written questions listed above, the Commission has described the measures it has taken and which it continues to take to fight against discrimination, which is caused by a native speaker criterion contained in job advertisements. The Commission is currently evaluating whether any additional measure can be taken.

---

(1)  Answers by the Commission, particularly to the following Written Questions: E-4100/00, E-0779/01, E-1356/01, E-1681/01, E- 1682/01, E-2331/01, E-2900/01, E-2901/01, E-2944/01, E-3189/01, E-3572/01, E-0941/02, E-2764/02, E-3786/02, E-1733/03, E-2018/03 and E-2226/03.

(2)  The European Esperanto Union has recorded more than 700 such discriminatory advertisements (see list on its website http://lingvo.Org/eo/2/l 5).

(3)  OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(4)  OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(5)  OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(6)  OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

(7)  OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(8)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

(9)  OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

(10)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(11)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004.

(12)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/302 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/302

---

(2004/C 84 E/0350)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Consequences of the letter to the Commission from six Member States following the failure of the Brussels IGC

In view of the letter sent addressed to the Commission by six Member States (Germany, the UK, France, Holland, Sweden and Austria) following the failure of the Brussels IGC and calling for the EU's budgets for the next six years not to exceed 1 % of the Union's GDP, can the Commission state how it intends to respond to this perplexing and unfortunate request?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission has presented its proposal for the new financial framework, covering the period 2007-2013, on 10 February 2004 (1).

In this Communication, more specifically on pp. 27-29, the Commission addresses in detail the legacy of existing commitments and concludes that ‘a ceiling around 1 % of GNI, would fail to meet the European Council commitments on agricultural payments, would undermine the phasing-in of cohesion policy in the 10 new Member States, and would jeopardise the existing levels in other policies, let alone to implement the new policies.’

---

(1)  COM(2004)101.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/303 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/303

---

(2004/C 84 E/0351)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Incineration of railway sleepers

Three combustion plants for sludge, household waste and railway sleepers respectively are planned in the cross-border Europark industrial zone between the municipality of Coevorden in the Netherlands and Emlichheim in Germany. The combined processing capacity will be 720 000 tonnes a year. Electricity will also be generated (60 Megawatt hours a year) which is to be marketed as ‘green power’.

Railway sleepers are treated with wood preservatives such as tar and creosote and should be regarded as hazardous waste under Decision 2000/532/EC. The incineration of railway sleepers is controversial owing to the proven emission into the air, soil and water of fine dust, heavy metals (chromium and arsenic), hydrocarbons and dioxins.

Old railway sleepers are so heavily contaminated with chemicals that they need to undergo detoxification in special plants just like hazardous chemical waste.

The developers of the combustion plants are keen to have the licensing issue settled by 20 June 2004 as after that date it will no longer be possible to build waste incineration plants. The licence would be valid for 20 years.

Does the European Commission not agree that the incineration of impregnated railway sleepers should be prohibited?

Does it not share the view that electricity generated from waste incineration should never be designated green power as this misleads consumers about its origin?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

All installations which incinerate waste have to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 (1). The Directive covers incineration and co-incineration plants. According to Article 2(2) wood waste, which may contain halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment with wood-preservatives or coating, are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. That means incineration plants incinerating railway sleepers which are treated with wood preservatives such as tar and creosote have to meet all requirements laid down in Directive 2000/76/EC. These requirements include emission limit values for heavy metals, dioxins and furans and total organic carbon which could be relevant for the incineration of such waste. It would not appear that restrictions are necessary concerning the incineration of such wastes.

Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal energy market (2) includes biomass in the definition of renewable energy sources. Biomass is defined in the Directive as ‘the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste’. As railways sleepers are made from wood, this definition allows them to contribute to the generation of electricity from renewable sources as envisaged by Directive 2001/77/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/304 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/304

---

(2004/C 84 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0066/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Parmalat bankruptcy

The unprecedented collapse of the Parmalat company in Italy with debts estimated at some EUR 10 billion, the biggest accounting fraud ever recorded in Europe, has dramatically highlighted the serious lack of stringent and effective rules capable of combating fraudulent corporate accounting practices.

In a single market such as the European market which is governed, in accordance with the Treaties, by the constitutional principles of free movement of persons, goods, capital and services, does the Commission not agree that, to protect European citizens more effectively against this type of fraud, and in line with the principle of free competition between undertakings subject to compliance with common rules, it should take urgent action in the form of Community measures to ensure enhanced supervision of corporate account auditing in the Union?

Does the Commission not consider, by the standards of Community law, that Italy's current regulatory system for S.p.A.s (joint-stock companies) is inadequate, particularly as regards the role played by Consob and the Bank of Italy?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Although it will always remain impossible to prevent all fraudulent behaviour, the Commission agrees that urgent action is needed in order to restore the confidence of investors in capital markets by making it more difficult to commit fraud, by clarifying the duties of board members and auditors, by tightening the public oversight over the audit profession and by improving co-operation between oversight bodies in the EU and with third countries. This is the reason why the Commission proposed in its Action Plan on Statutory Audit (1), a number of measures aimed at improving the quality of statutory audit throughout the EU and why the Commission announced in its Action Plan on Company Law (2) a number of initiatives in order to improve corporate governance.

The Commission intends to propose in March 2003 a revision of the 8th Company Law Directive (3) which will deal with issues such as the registration of auditors, ethics and independence, auditing standards and audit reporting, audit quality assurance, investigations and sanctions, public oversight, communication between the auditor and the board of directors and regulatory co-operation between oversight bodies in the EU and with oversight bodies of third countries. The Commission also intends to try to accelerate some of the corporate governance measures announced in the Action Plan on Company Law, such as the role of independent non-executive or supervisory directors, the clarification of the collective responsibility of all directors for financial and key non-financial information and the disclosure of group structures and intra-group transactions.

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to make specific comments on the adequacy of the current regulatory system in Italy. With the measures indicated above, the Commission seeks to improve regulatory co-operation between all EU oversight bodies. Stronger co-ordination of oversight activities at EU level will have beneficiary consequences for improving the present situation in Member States, ‘inter alia’ by exchanging best practice, advising on audit standards, etc.

---

(1)  Commission Communication of 21 May 2003 on ‘Reinforcing the statutory audit in the EU’, OJ C 236, 2.10.2003.

(2)  Commission Communication of 21 May 2003 on ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the EU — A Plan to Move Forward’, COM(2003) 284 final.

(3)  Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April 1984 on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents, OJ L 126, 12.5.1984.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/305 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/305

---

(2004/C 84 E/0353)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0093/04

by Martin Kastler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Trafficking in humans and prostitution in the German-Czech border area

A few months before enlargement, the prostitution of young women from Eastern Europe and Asia and illegal trafficking in humans on the German-Czech border remain an unsolved problem on a worrying scale, and one that is getting worse.

| 1. | What follow-up measures has the Commission taken since the framework decision in 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings and growing illegal prostitution and related offences in the German-Czech border area?
  With regard to prostitution, experts are concerned about a drastic increase in sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis around the German-Czech border and an even more dramatic rise in HIV/AIDS cases in Central and Eastern Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.

What follow-up measures has the Commission taken since the framework decision in 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings and growing illegal prostitution and related offences in the German-Czech border area?

With regard to prostitution, experts are concerned about a drastic increase in sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis around the German-Czech border and an even more dramatic rise in HIV/AIDS cases in Central and Eastern Europe.

| 2. | As part of which programme and with what level of funding is the Commission supporting projects to improve the health situation in the German-Czech border area in the period 2003-2006 (e.g. Streetworking, JANA, etc.)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

As part of which programme and with what level of funding is the Commission supporting projects to improve the health situation in the German-Czech border area in the period 2003-2006 (e.g. Streetworking, JANA, etc.)?

| 3. | Is the Commission considering launching a new, widescale campaign or possibly a European year of action on this important subject? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission considering launching a new, widescale campaign or possibly a European year of action on this important subject?

| 4. | Trafficking in human beings and prostitution account for an increasingly large proportion of crime statistics in the border area. Does the EU have the means and the ways to support the efforts of those countries affected in terms of police and judicial cooperation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Trafficking in human beings and prostitution account for an increasingly large proportion of crime statistics in the border area. Does the EU have the means and the ways to support the efforts of those countries affected in terms of police and judicial cooperation?

| 5. | Are further measures specifically planned for the German-Czech border area? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are further measures specifically planned for the German-Czech border area?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Trafficking in human beings is an issue of major concern for the Commission. As far as the situation along the German-Czech border is concerned, the Commission notes an increasing number of reports and statements which are drawing public attention to that particular region. Further to these reports the Commission verified the situation as regards sexually transmissible diseases (e.g. syphilis). So far, the German public health Institute, Robert Koch Institute has no information indicating a spectacular increase of these diseases at the German-Czech border. For example, the German Land Sachsen reported 71 cases from June to August 2001 compared to 75 cases from June to August 2002. The Commission will, however, continue to monitor the developments on the situation in the German-Czech border region as part of its epidemiological surveillance coordination in the EU.

With regard to trafficking in human beings, the Commission concluded in its Regular Report 2002 that the Czech Government had undertaken significant steps to address this issue. Over the past years, the Czech Government has undertaken several steps to improve the legal framework in this respect. An amendment to the Criminal Code in 2002 extends the scope of the definition of ‘trafficking’ to also cover children, and an amendment of the Criminal Proceedings Code has accelerated and simplified the proceedings involving child victims. In 2000, the Czech Government adopted a national plan combating commercial sexual abuse of children and in 2003, a national plan combating trafficking in human beings for purposes of sexual exploitation. The implementation of the plans is followed up on a regular basis. The Commission encourages the Czech authorities to take further action, in particular for ensuring an effective monitoring system, detecting and prosecuting of perpetrators. It is also important that Czech authorities ensure close co-operation between relevant police departments, internally as well as with neighbouring countries.

Under the PHARE programme the Commission has provided substantial funding to the Czech authorities for fighting organised crime and trafficking in human beings. To this effect, approximately EUR 5,5 million has been made available to the Czech Republic over the last four years. Further support can be provided after accession under the Transition Facility.

In 2003 the Commission set up an Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings in order to ensure proper implementation of the recommendations of the Brussels Declaration on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. The Commission intends to issue a communication including an action plan further to the findings of the Experts Group. This might include a wide range of measures such as awareness raising campaigns, under EU programmes like AGIS and Daphne.

On 22 July 2002 the Council adopted the decision establishing a framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS) (1). AGIS was established for the period from 2003 to 2007 with a financial reference amount of EUR 65 million. The programme supports projects in areas such as the cooperation between law enforcement authorities or other public or private organisations involved in preventing and fighting crime, organised or otherwise. This includes projects focusing on police or judicial cooperation in the area of trafficking in human beings or the sexual exploitation of children. Another important area covered by the programme is the effective protection of the interests of victims, for example victims of human trafficking, in criminal proceedings.

Further funding means are available under the Daphne Programme to combat violence against children, young people and women. This programme provided EUR 20 million for 2000-2003. The Daphne II programme will run from 2004 until 2008, with a budget of EUR 50 million which corresponds to a doubling of the annual appropriation.

In the context of the Community Support Framework for the Czech Republic and in accordance with the Commission's Further Indicative Guidelines for the Candidate Countries for the 2004-2006 programming, documents promoting a culture of ‘crime prevention’ may be co-financed, in particular by bringing together all parties involved in the prevention of crime at national, regional or local level (national judicial and law enforcement authorities, entrepreneurs, trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), representatives of EU Institutions etc.). Such activities shall be co-ordinated with those in the area of justice and home affairs co-financed under the Transition Facility for Institution Building, or other national or international instruments or programmes, in order to ensure synergy and avoid any undue duplication of activities or funding.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/306 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/306

---

(2004/C 84 E/0354)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/04

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Dolphins

Is the Commission aware that over the weekend of 10/11 January, 15 dolphins were washed up on the coast of south west England in my constituency?

Whilst I am aware of and support the changes made by Commissioner Fischler to support and protect dolphins and other cetaceans from being killed as by-catch, does the Commission know of similar kinds of large-scale deaths elsewhere? Has the Commission considered whether further and stronger measures may be necessary?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of dead dolphins being washed ashore on the beaches of Member States, in particular in winter periods in the South of the United Kingdom, and of the fact that these deaths are due in part to incidental catch in fishing activities. However, the Commission is not aware of all detailed figures on stranding events.

The Commission considers that the first step to address the problem of cetacean by-catch in fisheries, and the issue of cetacean conservation in more general terms, should be the adoption and full implementation of the measures already proposed by the Commission to the Council (1), as well as a proper and full implementation of the ‘Habitats Directive’ requirements by the Member States (2). Further measures could only be considered after this first step has been taken.

---

(1)  COM(2003)451 final.

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992; Directive as last amended by Directive 97/62/CE of 27 October 1997 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 305, 8.11.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/307 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/307

---

(2004/C 84 E/0355)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Integrated waste management in the municipality of Casale sul Sile (Treviso)

By virtue of Decision No 25 of 22 October 2002, and without issuing a call for tenders, the municipality of Casale sul Sile (Treviso) became a member of the Priula inter-municipal consortium, which is the body responsible for the TV2 basin created in 1987 to facilitate the comprehensive management of urban waste for all participating municipalities. The consortium has subcontracted the waste removal operations to the firm Contarina SpA, in which it is the majority shareholder.

The decision specifies the following requirements for membership: acquisition, as a minimum associative share, of 0,1 of the consortium's stock, calculated on the basis of the consortium's net assets and equivalent to around EUR 30 000; acceptance of the provisions of the consortium's memorandum and articles of association and subsequent amendments thereto; delegation to the consortium of the urban waste management service and the application and collection of the fees arising therefrom.

The text of the decision also specifies that the management of the service shall be ‘direct, in that the consortium emanates from the associate bodies’ and that ‘the (municipal) administration did not have sufficient time at its disposal to launch a European-type invitation to tender and at the same time was not prepared to prolong the contract of the company that had been managing the service’. In an article published in the municipal journal, the mayor stated that launching a European tendering procedure meant admitting the successful company ‘solely on the basis of economic criteria, with difficulties as regards direct intervention in the organisation or quality of the service’.

Does the Commission not consider the procedure described above to contravene the principles of transparency and competition laid down in Community provisions and Community law, since the contracting authority has assigned the complete management of a public service to a contracting consortium that it has selected directly, and of which it has moreover become a member, thereby also creating a conflict of interests?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The municipality of Casale sul Sile's awarding of waste management services to which the Honourable Member refers is an instance of the more general problem of Italian legislation governing the forms of management and awarding of local public services.

As the Commission previously explained in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question No 555/03 (1), this legislation is currently the subject of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. In the course of this procedure, the Commission sent Italy a letter of formal notice in 2000 and a supplementary letter of formal notice in 2002.

Laws No 326 of 24 November 2003 and No 350 of 24 December 2003 recently reformed the local public services sector in Italy.

The Commission will examine the new legislative framework as established by the above-mentioned laws and decide accordingly what action should be taken with regard to the infringement proceedings against Italy.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/308 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/308

---

(2004/C 84 E/0356)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Containers of arsenic pentoxide at sea

On 21 December 2003 in very heavy seas to the north-west of the Dutch island of Texel, the cargo ship Andinet, which was sailing under an Ethiopian flag from Antwerp to Bremen, lost three containers (carrying a total of 630 drums) and 63 loose drums of wood pesticide consisting of 24 % arsenic pentoxide, 34 % chromium trioxide and 14 % copper dioxide. In addition, the content of about 50 drums of the toxic substance (5 000 litres) was washed into the sea during the storm.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that:






  — | ships with hazardous substances on board should be forbidden to put out to sea in storms, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that:

—

ships with hazardous substances on board should be forbidden to put out to sea in storms,

| — | it should be forbidden to transport containers of hazardous substances on deck, |
| --- | --- |

—

it should be forbidden to transport containers of hazardous substances on deck,

| — | every container of hazardous materials should be equipped with a transmitter for ease of traceability? |
| --- | --- |

—

every container of hazardous materials should be equipped with a transmitter for ease of traceability?

| 2. | What steps will the Commission take within the EU and the IMO to ensure that the prohibitions mentioned in paragraph 1 are introduced, as well as the requirement that containers carrying hazardous substances should be equipped with a transmitter? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps will the Commission take within the EU and the IMO to ensure that the prohibitions mentioned in paragraph 1 are introduced, as well as the requirement that containers carrying hazardous substances should be equipped with a transmitter?

| 3. | Does the Commission take the view that existing controls at the time of loading are stringent enough, or should the rules on stowing cargo be reviewed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission take the view that existing controls at the time of loading are stringent enough, or should the rules on stowing cargo be reviewed?

| 4. | Who is responsible for the recovery of cargo lost overboard, who is liable for any damage to the environment or biodiversity, and does the Commission take the view that the question of liability is sufficiently well regulated? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Who is responsible for the recovery of cargo lost overboard, who is liable for any damage to the environment or biodiversity, and does the Commission take the view that the question of liability is sufficiently well regulated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (1) lays down measures in the event of exceptionally bad weather, including the possibility for the competent authority to recommend or prohibit either a particular ship or ships in general from entering or leaving a port.

In general, the transport below deck of containers of hazardous products, particularly explosives, presents a greater risk to the safety of the ship than storage on deck.

With regard to the obligation to equip containers of hazardous substances with a transmitter, as part of the 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, the Commission launched the Safe InterModal Transport Across the Globe (Simtag) research project, the objectives of which include the development of viable technology for tracing and identifying cargoes which pose a risk to the environment, and the intelligent tracking of containers.

On the basis of the results of the Simtag project, the Commission will examine appropriate measures in the framework of its right of initiative.

Concerning the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), however, the Commission would point out that the Community is not a contracting party to any international conventions on the rules for loading and stowing containers of hazardous substances. The Commission currently has permanent observer status at the IMO, which limits it scope for action in this field. In order to allow the Community to act more effectively at international level, the Commission has submitted a recommendation to the Council to allow the Community to join the IMO.

New rules on stowage are adopted by the IMO in connection with amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 74) and in the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing (CSS Code).

With regard to controls at the time of loading, the Paris MOU on Port State Control, which became obligatory under Directive 2001/106/EC on port State control (2), specifies that the inspector of the ship may verify that dangerous goods have been stowed on board in conformity with the cargo securing manual and the certificate of conformity, using the register of dangerous products or the stowage plan required under Chapter VII of SOLAS 74.

The Commission would also point out that the Community measures adopted after the Erika accident have made it possible to increase ship inspection staff in ports allowing Member States to comply with the requirement to inspect a minimum of 25 % of ships entering ports.

As regards any damage to the environment or to biodiversity, there is still no Community instrument regulating this area. This matter is dealt with under national legislation, together with the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maríne Claims, if applicable. The 1996 Protocol to this Convention has not yet entered into force. The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 (HNS) has not yet entered into force, in spite of the Council Decision 2002/971/EC of 18 November 2002 (3) authorising the Member States, in the interest of the Community, to ratify or accede to the HNS Convention.

Concerning the recovery of cargo lost overboard, the responsibility rests with the national authorities which have appropriate means of intervention in the framework of pollution control plans.

In response to this and previous incidents, the Commission has given particular attention to the prevention and control of pollution and the secure transport of hazardous goods in the context of the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

---

(1)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

(2)  Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

(3)  OJ L 337, 13.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/309 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/309

---

(2004/C 84 E/0357)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0131/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Tragedy involving Albanian migrants

Last week, the Adriatic Sea was the scene to a fresh tragedy, in which 21 (in reality, probably around 40) Albanian nationals attempting illegally to enter Italy died. The accident took place at a time when the flow of illegal immigrants from Albania to Italy has noticeably lessened. 137 Albanian illegal immigrants were intercepted on the Italian coast in 2003, compared to 3 372 in 2002 and 40 000 in 1999. According to the Italian and Albanian authorities, this drop is due to the cooperation agreement signed by both countries in 1997 or more mundanely, others say, to the fact that a large number of the Albanians wanting to emigrate to find work have already done so.

Is the Commission aware that at the root of this tragedy and all those that have accompanied illegal immigration from Albania over the last few years is the prohibitionist policy that still governs the present visa system operating between Albania and the EU Member States? Does the Commission realise that its responsibility now more than ever is to propose to the Council and Parliament a new visa system that would automatically allow all Albanians a three-month tourist visa valid throughout the EU, or at the very least the Schengen area? Is the Commission aware that, as illustrated by Bulgaria and Romania, a change in the visa system would not noticeably increase the number of immigrants, but would, on the contrary, have the enormous advantage of destroying the illegal immigration networks in Albania and inside the Community? Is the Commission aware that a policy of this kind would enable the extremely difficult and costly land and maritime policing measures to be replaced with the much less burdensome option of supporting and cooperating with Albania's police force and customs service? In view of these facts, with which the competent authorities of the EU and its Member States are perfectly familiar, does the Commission not consider that, should a similar tragedy occur in the future, the criminal or civil liability of an EU or Member State authority could not be ruled out?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Unfortunately, like previous tragedies, the recent tragedy involving the death of Albanians who were trying to enter Italy illegally illustrates the extent of the pressure of immigration from Albania.

Visa policy is one of the ways in which the Community can control migration flows. Requiring Albanians to hold a visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (1) reflects the Community legislator's assessment of Albania in the light of the criteria set out in the fifth recital to the Regulation, one of which is illegal immigration. The visa system helps to control immigration from Albania. Each application for a short-stay visa must be examined individually on the basis of the information and justification provided by the applicant. If there are no objections, particularly from an immigration point of view, the visa is issued.

The Commission considers that dispensing with visa requirements for Albanians is not an appropriate response to the current situation. It also believes that the automatic issuing of short-stay visas, as advocated by the Honourable Member, goes against the philosophy of the harmonised visa policy.

That said, the Commission is convinced that the phenomenon of migration cannot be tackled solely by imposing visa requirements and believes that a comprehensive approach is needed, specifically one which includes the countries of origin. Consequently, a series of other measures has been adopted in an attempt to improve the management of migration flows from Albania. A readmission agreement was signed in December 2003 between the Community and Albania covering all categories of migrant (nationals, nationals of third countries, stateless persons). This is an illustration of the excellent cooperation there has been between the EU and the Albanian authorities on this matter.

The Commission also provides financial assistance to Albania, particularly as regards strengthening the integrated management of borders. In 1997 specific action was taken by the EU Customs Assistance Mission to Albania (CAM-Α) to modernise and improve the efficiency of customs in cooperation with the police. Furthermore, specific action is also being taken under the CARDS programme (2) to strengthen cooperation between police and customs at Albania's external borders (e.g. at the ports of Durres and Vlora and at Rinas airport). The total amount granted to Albania for the period 1998-2003 was EUR 306,3 million (EUR 177,4 million under the PHARE programme for the period 1998-2000 and EUR 128,9 million under the CARDS programme for the period 2001-2003). Financial assistance for the areas of ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ and customs totalled EUR 25,25 million for 1998-2000 (PHARE) and EUR 68 million for 2001-2003 (CARDS). The total amount was therefore EUR 93,25 million. The Commission will also be able to finance any projects under the new programme of financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum (Aeneas) in addition to those already financed under the CARDS programme. In line with Article 1 of the new Regulation, particular consideration will be given to the readmission agreement signed with Albania. Finally, it should be noted that, as part of the preparatory action taken under budget heading B7-667 before the adoption of the programme, the Commission financed various projects for Albania in 2001 (co-financing for two projects totalling EUR 1,367 million) and in 2002 (co-financing of one project totalling EUR 0,429 million). A project has also been selected for 2003 (requested co-financing of EUR 0,713 million).

Moreover, several recent important initiatives will help in dealing with similar situations.

For instance, the Council has recently approved a programme of measures aimed at combating illegal immigration by sea in the Member States. The key to its success lies in strengthening cooperation with the countries of origin or transit for illegal immigrants, in making sure that third countries receive technical and organisational assistance to tighten surveillance of the coastline from which the illegal immigrants depart, in carrying out sea patrols in cooperation with the appropriate authorities in the Member States and third countries concerned by illegal immigration, etc.

The Irish Presidency and the Commission are working on a road map for this programme to ensure that the measures it contains are implemented quickly.

The Commission also considers that the start of operational activities in the two coordination centres for maritime borders will help to improve the management of migration flows from third countries and to avoid tragedies like the one described by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC and 1999/311/EC, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/311 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/311

---

(2004/C 84 E/0358)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/04

by Marjo Matikaineri-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Improved aviation safety through more effective channelling of information

The disastrous crash of an aircraft owned by the charter airline Flash has shown that the authorities, travel agencies and passengers are not adequately informed about possible safety problems affecting individual airlines. Access to information is difficult and in some cases the release of any information whatsoever is prohibited by law. As a result, an airline which has been banned from flying in one country may be able to carry on its activities in other countries. From the point of view of the safety of passengers, this is no longer acceptable.

Does the Commission intend to incorporate into the directive it is now preparing on aviation safety uniform rules, applicable to all the EU Member States, governing the procedures for checking aircraft and airlines, for reporting on the outcome of such checks and for forwarding that information to all the EU Member States? What time-frame has the Commission set itself for completing the directive on aviation safety?

What measures does the Commission plan to take to ensure that both travel agencies and passengers can obtain reliable, up-to-date information on possible safety risks and that passengers can thus take, at their own discretion, decisions on matters which have a fundamental bearing on their own safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No P-l58/04 by Mr Hortefeux (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/312 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/312

---

(2004/C 84 E/0359)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0133/04

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Fishery control agency in Vigo

On 13 December 2003 the European Council decided to set up a fishery control agency with its headquarters in Vigo.

Is the Commission already working on a proposal for a regulation which will provide the requisite legal basis for this Agency? What powers and resources will the Agency have?

Has the Commission already begun to draw up the economic study for the way the Agency will operate?

When, approximately does the Commission believe the Agency will begin operations in Vigo?

How many Community officials and temporary agents, and of what categories, will be working for it? How many local agents, in addition to the statutory staff, does the Commission calculate it will employ?

Has the Commission begun to look for a building in Vigo to accommodate the Agency? Have the Spanish authorities made the Commission any offer in this connection? If so, what are the details?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the conclusion reached by the Member States at the Heads of State and Government meeting on 13 December 2003 in Brussels regarding the establishment of a European fisheries control agency, whose headquarters will be in Spain.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, it would seem that the Spanish Government wishes the agency to be located in the city of Vigo in Galicia.

In March 2004 the Commission will present a proposal to the Council and to Parliament for a Regulation setting up the Community fisheries control agency. The proposal will include the agency's budget, with detailed information on its staff numbers and their grades.

A study which the Commission asked to be undertaken in 2003 will evaluate the agency's operating procedures.

Once established, the agency will progressively assume its functions. The agency's location will in any case be the subject of an agreement between it and the Spanish authorities, to be concluded after the agency's management board has been set up and its director appointed.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/312 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/312

---

(2004/C 84 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0134/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Collapse of Parmalat and insufficient checks by Bankitalia

The financial collapse of the Italian Parmalat group highlighted a serious lack of checks by Bankitalia regarding the Parmalat group's relations with the Italian banking system. The stock market watchdog, Consob, expressed its disappointment at being denied access by the Italian central bank to data held by Bankitalia's risks bureau on Parmalat's position.

Will the Commission adopt a clear position regarding the tasks that still need to be carried out, uniformly, by the central banks of Member States?

Does not the Commission feel that there is a need to set up truly independent authorities in each Member State to guarantee and protect the rights of savers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission notes that a criminal investigation by the Italian Courts to assess responsibilities in the failure of the Parmalat group is still ongoing. Moreover, the discussions in Italy on whether, and to what extent, the activity of Banca d'Italia had an impact on the efficiency of the controls are still continuing. Therefore, the Commission considers it premature and inappropriate to express a view on this specific case.

On a broader perspective, it is the responsibility of Member States to decide how the supervision of banks, other financial institutions and listed companies should be organised to achieve the objective of efficient prudent supervision, market integrity and transparency, necessary to ensure the protection of savers, investors and the stability of financial system, on the basis of the principles and provisions laid down in the EU Banking Directives (1) and the EU securities, accounting and audit directives and regulations. These principles include provisions on co-operation and exchange of information between supervisory authorities as well as the obligation of professional secrecy in supervision.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/313 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/313

---

(2004/C 84 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0135/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Rome central dairy: safeguarding jobs and protecting farmers

Since 1996, a series of questions have been submitted condemning alleged irregularities in the privatisation procedure of the Rome central dairy (see Written Questions P-1747/96 (1), P-1071/97 (2), E-3408/97 (3), E-0547/98 (4), E-1511/98 (5), E-2486/98 (6), E-0567/99 (7) and P-2069/99 (8)); in particular, doubts were expressed over the legitimacy of the procedure restructuring the company's debt using state aid and over the manner of its subsequent sale to Cirio in 1999 for LIT 26 500 million and of its sale to the Parmalat group for LIT 334 800 million.

Today, the events of the financial collapse of the multinational Parmalat run the risk of drawing in the company Eurolat S.p.A., which owns 75 % of the Rome central dairy and which is controlled by the Parmalat group.

Nevertheless, thanks to the acquisition of the remaining 16 % by Finlatte S.p.A., on which 250 farmers depend, the Rome central dairy has enjoyed a financial recovery over recent years and has shown a profit.

Today, however, there is a real risk that the other 500 holdings that make up the ancillary industry of the central dairy may be closed, with serious repercussions in terms of jobs for the entire dairy and zootechnical sector in Lazio and the subsequent dismantling of an industrial cluster that is robust both financially and in terms of production.

In order to prevent the closure of the Rome central dairy, Finlatte S.p.A., which has technical resources and managerial capacity available, could manage the holding directly, paying rent to the said holding, money which could be used for a re-entry plan. It could also form a new Newco involving farmers and dependent workers, acquiring 100 % of the Rome central dairy on their behalf and for example, financing operations with a leveraged buyout, as there is still the possibility of wide margins for the said holding.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider possible the setting up of a new Newco tesa to safeguard the jobs in danger? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider possible the setting up of a new Newco tesa to safeguard the jobs in danger?

| 2. | What financial instruments other than rent and leveraged buyout are available? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What financial instruments other than rent and leveraged buyout are available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

On 11 April 2000 the Commission adopted Decision 2000/628/EC on the aid granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma (9).

The Commission is not aware of a risk of closure of the Rome central dairy.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission is not in a position to reply to the questions asked by the Honourable Member.

If a State Aid for the rescue and restructuring of a company in difficulty which operates in the milk business is notified to the Commission under Article 88 of the EC Treaty, the Commission will evaluate it in accordance with the rules applicable to these types of aids.

---

(1)  OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 102.

(2)  OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 60.

(3)  OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 103.

(4)  OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 84.

(5)  OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 39.

(6)  OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 9.

(7)  OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 102.

(8)  OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 129.

(9)  Commission Decision 2000/628/EC of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma, OJ L 265, 19.10.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/314 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/314

---

(2004/C 84 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/04

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   GM food and crop imports

Now that there is some EU legislation on genetically modified organisms, including legislation on GM food and crop imports, what is the Commission doing to ensure that the Member States are adequately implementing these regulations?

In particular, is the Commission ensuring where there is potential for GM products from external sources to enter the EU through the ports of Member States, that relevant bodies — such as Customs and Excise in the UK — are being instructed to test food, food ingredients and animal feed or seeds at the point of import, to see whether they contained banned GM ingredients or ingredients that should be labelled as GM? And is the Commission ensuring that Member States are providing bodies — such as Customs and Excise in the UK — with the necessary equipment to carry out such tests?

What steps would the Commission take should any GM products enter the EU through negligence at the point of import?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The authorisation and labelling requirements in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (1) will be enforced and controlled by Member States under the general provisions on controls of food and feed, as is the case in respect of current legislation. Over the last few years, the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) has carried out several inspections in order to evaluate the official control systems on GM food put in place by Member States, in particular in respect of genetically modified (GM) labelling, and has found that Member States' implementation of control programmes in this area is reasonably satisfactory.

Whilst FVO evaluations of official controls should identify any systematic shortcomings, Member-States remain responsible for operational tasks such as ensuring that relevant bodies are properly instructed and equipped. Under Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 (2), Member States shall ensure that inspections and other control measures, including sample checks and testing, as appropriate, are carried out to ensure compliance with this Regulation. In order to facilitate a coordinated approach of these controls and inspections, the Commission is in the process of developing and publishing technical guidance on sampling and testing.

This guidance provides that official controls can be carried out at any stage of the production, processing, storage, and distribution of GMOs (including seeds) or food and feed produced from GMOs, including at the point of import. The Community Reference Laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides guidance and assistance on the methods of testing, as well as training for Member States laboratories but does not supply testing equipment.

In case of infringement, it is for the Member States to take the appropriate measures and apply the necessary penalties, which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Should a Member-State not take the appropriate measures to implement the Community legislation, the Commission would be entitled to take the necessary steps, in accordance with the Treaty.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC, OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/315 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/315

---

(2004/C 84 E/0363)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0140/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Media access in the Azores and Madeira outlying regions

As is well known, Article 299(2) of the TEU states that there shall be special measures and conditions of support for the Union's most remote regions. However, the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira (Portugal) still suffer from problems relating to media access, notably to the national television channels SIC, TVI and Canal A2.

Free-of-charge access to these national television channels, which now cover all of mainland Portugal with no conditions attached, is not guaranteed in the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira. Their broadcasts are not available on an open-signal basis, and this makes it impossible to receive SIC, TVI or Canal A2 there.

Residents of those outlying regions cannot receive national television channels on the same basis as the rest of the inhabitants of Portugal. A paid-for service (TV Cabo) is the only means they have of accessing a service which is guaranteed free of charge on the mainland. In addition, the cable subscriptions are considerably higher than those paid by mainland viewers for other limited-access channels.

It is the responsibility of the Portuguese government to ensure access for residents of the outlying regions on the same conditions as mainland residents. However, under Article 299(2) of the TEU there is a strong case for Community support and funding to meet the costs of providing free and universal access to Portuguese television channels.

Can the Commission state its position on the possibility of support measures with a view to ending both this discriminatory situation over access to national media in the Azores and Madeira and TV Cabo's practice of charging higher subscriptions than those required for other limited-access channels in mainland Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Portuguese television channels' signal is distributed by an organisation which owns the television broadcasting network and which the television channel owners pay for the broadcasting service.

RTP (Radiotelevisao Portuguesa) pays that organisation for broadcasting the signal of its first channel throughout the country. The requirement to supply that channel to the whole population is among the public-service obligations stipulated by the Portuguese Government. RTP is not subject to the same requirement for channel A2, however, nor as regards mainland access to the regional channels RTP Madeira and RTP Azores).

TV Cabo, to which the Honourable Member refers, is a service supplied by a private organisation which, under agreement with a number of national and foreign channels, provides access to them for its customers throughout the country. In return for payment, that service not only provides access to the Portuguese channels referred to above but also to foreign channels, either via cable or via small dishes and individual satellite-reception equipment.

Admittedly there are differences due to geographical location as regards cost and accessibility in the more isolated regions, and this is aggravated in the remotest regions because of the distances involved. Such differences are noticed not only as regards access to Portuguese commercial television channels, but also in relation to various ‘imports’ and ‘exports’ of products, raw materials, equipment and services, and the movement of people.

However, the Commission considers that this is a matter for the national and regional authorities in Portugal and that Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty does not alter that division of responsibility. If the Portuguese authorities wish to grant aid to promote access to broadcast services, the aid must nevertheless comply with Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

With regard to infrastructure which may be financed under the Structural Funds, decisions are taken on the basis of the priorities which the national and regional authorities and the Commission set jointly in advance, and do not cover television channel distribution objectives. That financing cannot therefore be extended to include all areas in which deficiencies are found.

According to the latest information available to the Commission, the Portuguese Government is currently examining the possibility of inducing the private channels TVI and SIC to distribute their broadcasts in clear to the Azores and Madeira regions. An agreement with those television channels could meet the wishes expressed by the Honourable Member.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/316 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/316

---

(2004/C 84 E/0364)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Child labour

Despite the existence in all the Member States of specific and solicitous laws on the protection of children's rights, the scourge of child labour has not been totally eradicated. Quite the contrary, in many cases criminals have taken a hold on this area, creating a veritable world market which very often uses cheap child workers who are immigrants, and therefore more easily exploitable.

Furthermore, it seems that industries such as the film, audio-visual and fashion industries, which have a certain allure, are using increasingly sophisticated techniques to attract child workers, and so use teenagers of school age who under the legislation in force would not be permitted to work in other sectors. Unfortunately — and this is the most repugnant aspect of this phenomenon — it has been proved that some of the agencies concerned are a cover for operations linked to drugs, prostitution and paedophilia.

Can the Commission therefore indicate:

| 1. | whether an enquiry has been conducted to verify the true scale in Europe of this phenomenon which, even in the best-case scenarios where there is no violence, can clearly be seen to profoundly effect teenagers' development by depriving them of some of their basic rights; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether an enquiry has been conducted to verify the true scale in Europe of this phenomenon which, even in the best-case scenarios where there is no violence, can clearly be seen to profoundly effect teenagers' development by depriving them of some of their basic rights;

| 2. | what initiatives it will take to identify new methods of combating child labour, with particular reference to industries such as the fashion, film and audio-visual industries, which call for regulation of a type that lays down transparency criteria for the granting of licences to agencies and limits children's activities to tasks corresponding to their age. |
| --- | --- |

2.

what initiatives it will take to identify new methods of combating child labour, with particular reference to industries such as the fashion, film and audio-visual industries, which call for regulation of a type that lays down transparency criteria for the granting of licences to agencies and limits children's activities to tasks corresponding to their age.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (1) prohibits work by children under 15 years or who are still subject to compulsory schooling. It obliges Member States to ensure that young people under 18 years are protected against economic exploitation and against any work likely to harm their safety, health or physical, mental, moral or social development or to jeopardize their education.

Member States may authorize employment of children for the purposes of performance in cultural, artistic, sports, or advertising activities on condition that the activities are not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and are not such as to be harmful to their attendance at school, their participation in vocational guidance or training programmes or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received.

The Directive has been transposed in all Member States. Even though the legislative measures may be satisfactory, there are indications that the monitoring is not always sufficient. The Commission therefore envisages an exchange of best practices regarding monitoring young workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/317 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/317

---

(2004/C 84 E/0365)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   International Rice Year

Resolution 2/2001 of the Food and Agriculture Organisation Conference meant that at the 57th sitting of the UN General Assembly, on 16 December 2002, 2004 was declared to be International Rice Year.

The resolution highlights the fact that rice is the basic food of half the earth's population, proclaims the need to increase collective awareness of its role in the fight against poverty, under-nutrition and food safety, and invites the FAO to promote the marking of International Rice Year in collaboration with government and other bodies.

The slogan is ‘Rice is Life’, which takes rice as its starting point and seeks to tackle issues concerning production, nutrition, agro-biodiversity, soil and water management, employment and income, as well as social issues affecting rice-based systems.

Over 2 000 million people derive 60 to 70 % of their energies from rice and its derivatives, and rice is the fastest-growing source of food in Africa.

The European Union is one of the partners in this initiative.

The Commission:

| — | In what ways and in which events will it be participating the International Rice Year? |
| --- | --- |

—

In what ways and in which events will it be participating the International Rice Year?

| — | Has it planned an information campaign about the importance of rice? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has it planned an information campaign about the importance of rice?

| — | From a European perspective, which of the objective set out by the FAO does the Commission think possess most interest and practical scope for producers, processors and consumers? What initiatives has it taken or does it intend to take in this connection in respect of European rice producing countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

From a European perspective, which of the objective set out by the FAO does the Commission think possess most interest and practical scope for producers, processors and consumers? What initiatives has it taken or does it intend to take in this connection in respect of European rice producing countries?

| — | At international level, as part of EU cooperation and development policies, is there any specific action scheduled as part of International Rice Year, in the shape of Community aid work in the developing countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

At international level, as part of EU cooperation and development policies, is there any specific action scheduled as part of International Rice Year, in the shape of Community aid work in the developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

The Community supported the resolution at the 57th United Nations General Assembly making 2004 the International year of rice. In this respect, the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) was asked to promote the marking of the International year of rice (IYR) 2004 and has indeed already arranged several events to celebrate and mark the IYR 2004.

The Commission will of course participate, to the extent possible, in the different events, conferences and meetings arranged by, and in cooperation with, the FAO and other international organisations. In this respect the Commission has not envisaged its own information campaign and has participated at the FAO rice conference on 12/13 February 2004.

In its Concept Paper for the IYR 2004, the FAO has set out a number of objectives to reach the overarching goal: ‘to promote and guide the sustainable development of rice and rice-based production systems’. It is difficult to single out one objective over the other. They should be seen together as a whole since producers, processors and consumers do not always require the same approach and therefore do not have the same objective. European rice producers should, therefore, also be able to benefit and take part in the different conferences and meetings arranged to increase the awareness of rice production, its diversities and complexities and the possibility of ensuring a sustainable development of rice and rice-based systems globally, nationally and locally.

The importance of rice to producers, processors and consumers around the world has never escaped the Commission's attention. Rice is in many cases, directly or indirectly, part of numerous development projects annually financed by the Commission and Member States to, among other things, support agricultural development, increase food security and reduce hunger and poverty. These are in one way or another inextricably linked to rice production, rice trade and rice consumption for a large number of people around the world. Many of these development projects will go well beyond 2004. Some examples of programmes and projects specifically supporting the rice sector are: a programme in support of the competitiveness of the rice sector in the Caribbean, which will start in 2004, on-going programmes in support of the rice chain in Mali and in Niger. Other programmes, for example in Madagascar and Northern Ghana, target the agricultural sector in general, but have a significant component aimed at the rice sector.

In terms of research, the Commission financially supports two rice-focussed centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), namely the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), based in The Philippines and the West African Rice Development Association (WARDA), based in the Ivory Coast.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/319

---

(2004/C 84 E/0366)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0149/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Revenue from denationalisation used to cover current expenditure

The Greek Government holds account number 234 339/0 with the Bank of Greece, into which is paid the revenue obtained from the denationalisation of public enterprises. Finance Ministry documents put before the Hellenic Parliament have revealed that between 2001 and 20 September 2003, EUR 3,9 billion was drawn from that account to cover current government expenditure.

The Finance Ministry documents refer to specific funds for the Olympic Games, the staff insurance fund of the Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE), the Skaramanga shipyards, the Thessaloniki Water Company, the ‘Bambakos’ organisation, hospitals, and meeting the needs of the Public Company for Transferable Securities (DEKA), etc.

Under the terms of the relevant regulations, can the revenue from denationalisation be used to cover current budget expenditure or only to reduce the public debt? What measures does the Commission propose to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

In the context of the Community budgetary surveillance procedures, government accounts — notably the government deficit/surplus — should be compiled according to the rules laid down in the European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA95) (1).

According to the ESA95 accounting rules, privatisation proceeds — including proceeds from indirect privatisations — are financial receipts (see ESA95 paragraphs 4.165(g) and 5.86). Therefore, such receipts are not taken into account in the calculation of the general government deficit/surplus. This means that if an EU government decides to increase expenditure, and finances such spending through a privatisation, its deficit will increase.

Since the government debt that is relevant for budgetary surveillance procedure is defined in gross terms (2) — that is, without netting government assets such as shares in public enterprises — privatisation lead to a reduction in the government debt level insofar as they reduce the government debt issuance or allow the government to buy back debt.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community, OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2)  The general government debt is defined in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/319

---

(2004/C 84 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Use of the term ‘Chechen network’ without any proven involvement of Chechens

In an increasingly conspicuous manner, judges from EU Member States are using terms which appear to back up the idea that Chechens are involved in terrorist networks active in the European Union. In particular, Judge Bruguière has created the term ‘Chechen networks’, which he uses to define any cases which may have a remote connection with international terrorist networks, although such use is unjustified. In actual fact, the adjective ‘Chechen’ serves only to specify a place — generally hypothetical — where apprentice terrorists and European citizens might have chosen to go, or a place — also generally hypothetical — where humanitarian aid might have been sent.

What is the Commission's view of the use of the term ‘Chechen network’ by judges from EU Member States? In particular, what is its view of the French judge Bruguière's use of the term to refer to a criminal case in which Chechens only appear to be involved because the EU citizens (not Chechens) accused in these cases cited Chechens as possible recipients of financial aid, or Chechnya as a place where they could carry out their plan for a holy war? Does the Commission not believe that by acting in this way judges contribute, whether intentionally or not, to the dissemination of false information and to the undermining of the image and the reputation of a whole people, and that they could therefore be responsible for growing feelings among EU citizens of racial hatred and intolerance, and even of violence towards Chechen refugees living in the European Union? Could the Commission ask the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna to carry out a thorough investigation into how widespread the above practices are, with regard to both the Chechen people and to other peoples, and into the political, legal and judicial implications that such practices could have?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters raised by the Honourable Member and, in any case, it is not in a position to comment on the assessments and decisions made by judges in the Member States in the course of their duties.

Nevertheless, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that it is not appropriate to identify the criminal conduct of individuals with a whole nation.

The Commission takes the view that the investigation requested does not fall within the areas of activity laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/320 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/320

---

(2004/C 84 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Disadvantaging certain categories of passengers through further restrictions on the sale of rail tickets from the Netherlands to other European destinations

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that Nederlandse Spoorwegen, a company that, in contrast with railway companies in other Member States, traditionally does not sell tickets to international destinations at the usual station ticket offices and which has already reduced the number of its international ticket outlets to ten in larger towns and cities and at Schiphol Airport, intends to close the remaining outlets in 2005? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that Nederlandse Spoorwegen, a company that, in contrast with railway companies in other Member States, traditionally does not sell tickets to international destinations at the usual station ticket offices and which has already reduced the number of its international ticket outlets to ten in larger towns and cities and at Schiphol Airport, intends to close the remaining outlets in 2005?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the planned alternatives will be limited to purchasing tickets over the internet and from machines to a number of destinations in Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Switzerland, with the result that passengers travelling to, for example, Spain, Italy, Austria, Poland, Denmark or the UK will be largely dependent on waiting times during opening hours at foreign stations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the planned alternatives will be limited to purchasing tickets over the internet and from machines to a number of destinations in Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Switzerland, with the result that passengers travelling to, for example, Spain, Italy, Austria, Poland, Denmark or the UK will be largely dependent on waiting times during opening hours at foreign stations?

| 3. | What will the consequences be for people living outside the Netherlands who do not possess a Netherlands bank card but who want to purchase a train ticket for a journey to a destination in another European country? What will happen in the case of passengers who do not have internet access or who decide to make an international train journey only at the last minute? Will such passengers have to travel without a valid ticket? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What will the consequences be for people living outside the Netherlands who do not possess a Netherlands bank card but who want to purchase a train ticket for a journey to a destination in another European country? What will happen in the case of passengers who do not have internet access or who decide to make an international train journey only at the last minute? Will such passengers have to travel without a valid ticket?

| 4. | Are there other EU Member States where rail tickets to foreign destinations can no longer be purchased at stations? Is the Commission aware of Member States where railway companies are considering phasing out such sales? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are there other EU Member States where rail tickets to foreign destinations can no longer be purchased at stations? Is the Commission aware of Member States where railway companies are considering phasing out such sales?

| 5. | Does the Commission think it acceptable that, running against the trend forwards of European integration, the rail network is increasingly being divided into national entities, which, because of restrictions on ticket sales and connections, are becoming less accessible to passengers from other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission think it acceptable that, running against the trend forwards of European integration, the rail network is increasingly being divided into national entities, which, because of restrictions on ticket sales and connections, are becoming less accessible to passengers from other Member States?

| 6. | What action can the Commission take against Member States and rail companies to prevent a situation where the rail network is accessible in a normal way only to passengers in their own Member State? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What action can the Commission take against Member States and rail companies to prevent a situation where the rail network is accessible in a normal way only to passengers in their own Member State?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission has noted the information supplied by the Honourable Member.

It is hard for the Commission to assess the consequences of this decision. The fact remains, however, that the rules of international rail transport require all passengers to be in possession of a valid ticket before boarding an international service.

The Commission does not know of any initiatives in other Member States to end the sale of international tickets at ticket offices and replace it with other forms of distribution. However, it is aware of the initiative by the International Union of Railways (UIC) to introduce a system containing information on all the rail services of its members (1). The UIC has also begun developing a reservation and sales system for international tickets issued by its members (Prifis (2)). These two systems should make it easier to obtain information on international services and to buy international tickets.

The Commission is continuing to work to create an integrated European rail area and on 3 March 2004 it adopted the third railway package, a set of measures to open up the market in international passenger services and establish the rights and duties of passengers in international rail traffic. These proposals include provisions requiring railway undertakings to cooperate with a view to offering passengers integrated tickets for journeys involving several railway undertakings.

---

(1)  Merits: Multiple European Railway Integrated Timetable Storage.

(2)  Prifis: Price and Fare Information System.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/321 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/321

---

(2004/C 84 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0156/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand that the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission carried out an independent feasibility study on the re-engineering of the Commission processes and the ‘off-the-shelf’ software solutions available on the market?

Has the Commission made available a project manager and an independent external consultant?

Could the Commission guarantee that there now exists an integrated accounting system fully compliant with the Financial Regulations?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/322

---

(2004/C 84 E/0370)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission established a central accounting department independent from the authority responsible for budget activities?

Has the Commission ensured that each DG has a separate accounting entity to analyse and evaluate the accounting aspects of the DG's activities? Do these entities liaise with the central accounting department?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/322

---

(2004/C 84 E/0371)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Can the Commission verify that that the substantive quality assurance of its financial reporting practices has been improved? How has this improvement been implemented in the DGs?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/322

---

(2004/C 84 E/0372)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission introduced an obligation for services to report their accounting provisions for each activity, measure or project they propose?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/323

---

(2004/C 84 E/0373)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission imposed a high level of quality control over financial data and the accompanying explanatory texts as recommended by the IAS?

Has the terminology used in respect of financial data been simplified as recommended by the ECA?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/323

---

(2004/C 84 E/0374)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission taken steps to ensure that the terminology used in the financial report clearly conveys the data presented?

Can the Commission guarantee that quality control over the financial data presented by DGs has been improved considerably?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/323

---

(2004/C 84 E/0375)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that it has revised the summary tables for the intangible and tangible assets to make them clearer and more readable?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/324

---

(2004/C 84 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has DG BUDG performed a detailed inventory of all past programmes such as ECIP and JOP? If not, will the Commission be performing such inventories, and if so when?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/324

---

(2004/C 84 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission implemented the prudence principle for all risk capital operations? Can the Commission confirm that the net results will be published separately in the annual financial report?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/324

---

(2004/C 84 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that it has altered the presentation of the Guarantee Fund in the balance sheet, to bring it more in line with the actual situation as established by the EIB?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/325

---

(2004/C 84 E/0379)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that assets are classified against the relevant balance sheet heading?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/325

---

(2004/C 84 E/0380)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission sought additional legal assurance and professional advice on the nature of the pension receivable or contingent claim, with regard to the Member States, from an accounting perspective, as recommended by the IAS?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/325

---

(2004/C 84 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that general rules on the valuation of stocks are applied without any exception throughout the Commission?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/325

---

(2004/C 84 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that in future the impact of changing valuation rules will be clearly explained in the explanatory notes to the balance sheet?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/326 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/326

---

(2004/C 84 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

How has the Commission ensured that the necessary human resources, IT infrastructure and organisational structures are in place for the reform of the accounting framework?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/326 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/326

---

(2004/C 84 E/0384)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that it will be using a balance sheet to show long-term assets available for covering a long-term debt, including the fund regarding the sickness insurance scheme?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/326 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/326

---

(2004/C 84 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

What measures has the Commission taken to improve the drafting quality of the Commission's Financial Report and the Consolidated Financial Report of the European Institutions?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/326 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/326

---

(2004/C 84 E/0386)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

What measures has the Commission taken to revise the accounting and consolidation manual and simplify the terminology used?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0156/04, E-0161/04, E-0162/04, E-0163/04, E-0164/04, E-0165/04, E-0166/04, E-0167/04, E-0168/04, E-0169/04, E-0170/04, E-0171/04, E-0172/04, E-0173/04, E-0174/04, E-0175/04, E-0176/04 and E-0177/04

given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

One of the first actions taken by the Commission in the modernisation of the accounting systems (ABAC) project was to make an inventory of all the business processes arising in each Directorate General (DG). Accounting standards were then drafted and accounting procedures are currently being prepared. This is one of the basic elements for the re-engineering of its processes.

An independent study was undertaken on the feasibility of the Commission's project for the modernisation of its accounting system, the conclusions of which were communicated to the Budgetary Control Committee on 8 July 2003. The Commission already uses ‘off the shelf’ software for its accounting, and will use the same software to support accrual-based accounts. Following the move to accrual accounting the Commission is planning to investigate the feasibility of integrating many financial management functions supported by in-house systems to appropriate Standard administrative provisions (SAP) modules.

The project leader of the ABAC project is the Accounting Officer of the Commission and he is directly supported by a full-time Project Supervisor, who is an external consultant. A project management team consisting of those responsible for the Accounting, Information Technology (IT) and User needs areas is also established. IT and accounting consultants are employed to reinforce the Commission staff designated to the project.

The current Sincom2 system has already been adapted and is compliant with the new Financial Regulation (1) in force. The development of ABAC aims to increase integration of the different system elements, so that the Commission will, in 2005, have a system in which all accounting records are integrated, and will allow the production of accrual accounts, as is required by that date by the Financial Regulation.

The Commission presently has an Accounting Officer in DG Budget of an Al Grade, who has no responsibilities for operational budgetary matters, and a separate directorate (BUDG C) dealing with all accounting aspects, including the modernisation project.

Each DG has an internal control co-ordinator who is usually the Director of Resources. Currently there is an Accounting correspondent in each DG that has been nominated to liaise with the central accounting directorate, i.e. ‘Accounting Net,’ and additionally an Accounting Modernisation team in each DG is being created. Accounting cells are not foreseen at present.

Improvements in the quality of financial reporting have been made over the past several years.

Furthermore, several actions will result in future improvements to the financial information and accounting practices:

| — | improving the accounting control framework in each DG and accounting services. A draft document has been drawn up; |
| --- | --- |

—

improving the accounting control framework in each DG and accounting services. A draft document has been drawn up;

| — | the creation of a new Accounting Manual, which is now being prepared; |
| --- | --- |

—

the creation of a new Accounting Manual, which is now being prepared;

| — | in the future, each item on the balance sheet will be supported by inventories/listings drawn from the accounts; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the future, each item on the balance sheet will be supported by inventories/listings drawn from the accounts;

| — | the Accounting Officer will validate local systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Accounting Officer will validate local systems;

| — | an accounting training plan for DGs has been presented; |
| --- | --- |

—

an accounting training plan for DGs has been presented;

| — | accounting Standards are currently being finalised. |
| --- | --- |

—

accounting Standards are currently being finalised.

The modernisation project is an ongoing process:

| — | a questionnaire was sent to the DGs in September 2002 asking services to identify the accounting impacts of their activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

a questionnaire was sent to the DGs in September 2002 asking services to identify the accounting impacts of their activities;

| — | workshops on the subject were held with each DG during May and June 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

workshops on the subject were held with each DG during May and June 2003;

| — | all business events and processes have been described and documented by the DGs and validated by the accounting correspondent in 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

all business events and processes have been described and documented by the DGs and validated by the accounting correspondent in 2003;

| — | a validation by each Director General has been made with the obligation on him or her to inform accounting services if new events are foreseen in the DG; |
| --- | --- |

—

a validation by each Director General has been made with the obligation on him or her to inform accounting services if new events are foreseen in the DG;

| — | generic business events for the entire Commission have been detailed in 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

generic business events for the entire Commission have been detailed in 2003;

| — | functional blueprints for the accounting procedures in accrual accounting have been prepared following the business event process. |
| --- | --- |

—

functional blueprints for the accounting procedures in accrual accounting have been prepared following the business event process.

Improvements in the quality of financial information will continue to be made in the future. For example, the preparation of provisional accounts, which are then audited by the Court of Auditors, allows the Commission to update its final accounts with recommendations made by the Court. In the future, the quality control should be easier because all data will be included within the accounting system and extra/non system accounting data will disappear.

Major improvements to the presentation of data have been made in the last few years based on the recommendations of the ECA and external experts. The Commission will continue these efforts to improve the presentation of financial data for the 2003 accounts.

The Commission has improved its presentation of information concerning tangible and intangible fixed assets so as to clarify and simplify the data presented — as was done in the 2002 accounts.

A concerted effort has been made with regard to quality control over the financial data presented in the 2002 accounts and two external experts were consulted in the process. Similar efforts will continue to be made for the 2003 accounts.

The Commission has improved its presentation of information on risk capital operations. The tables in the 2002 accounts were simplified compared to those in 2001 and 2000.

The DG responsible for ECIP is currently performing an inventory of tangible and intangible assets. However, given the size of the programme, where between 1988 and 1999, the Commission granted 1 365 advances for a total of EUR 139,3 million, the final results will not be available until end 2005. The 2003 accounts will, however, be updated to reflect the available information.

Preliminary figures for JOP at the end of 2003 show that there remained 12 open files totalling EUR 7 million which become due between 2006 and 2011. The open files are monitored by the DG responsible, for example through the receipt of third party reports, and amounts due to the Commission are followed up.

When providing the relevant information on such risk capital operations for inclusion in the annual accounts, the authorising officer provides his estimate of any write downs deemed necessary under the prudence principle. This is then reviewed by the accounting services. In both 2002 and 2001 the gross amounts, the writedowns and the net amounts were clearly presented in the notes to the balance sheet along with information on the movements since the preceeding year-end.

For consistency purposes the same presentation in the balance sheet was kept for the guarantee fund in the 2001 and 2002 accounts. However, as with all areas of the balance sheet this area is currently being examined under the modernisation of the accounting system project, and changes will be made if needed to bring the disclosures into line with International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) requirements for the 2005 accounts.

The Commission agrees with the consistent application of accounting practices and works towards achieving it each year in its annual accounts. New accounting standards are currently being prepared and an accounting manual should aid the consistent application of accounting practices.

On the basis of an actuarial valuation, a provision for pension liabilities was included in the 2001 and 2002 accounts. For the 2002 accounts, the Commission also received the advice of an external accounting expert on this subject. Furthermore, an Accounting Standard on this matter is currently being prepared, and was first discussed in the Accounting Standard Committee meeting in December 2003. Finally, a new actuarial valuation is currently being made and its results should be available to be reflected in the pension provision of 31 December 2003.

The rules on the valuation of stocks are clear and explained in the present accounting manual. The Accounting Officer insists on the correct application of these rules. A new accounting standard has also been prepared on stocks and was discussed in the Accounting Standard Committee.

The changes of valuation rules are already explained in the annual accounts. An effort is of course always made to continue to improve the explanations provided.

Additional staff have been allocated to DG Budget in 2003 which, together with external resources made available under two framework contracts, have enabled the modernisation project to be undertaken, and the IT structures to be adapted as necessary. A project team has been established within DG Budget, headed by the Accounting Officer. The resource needs of other services during the 2004 implementation phase are presently being assessed. Each service is setting up a management team charged with implementing the project's requirements.

The Commission is currently in the process of examining its accounting treatment of the sickness insurance scheme for the 2003 accounts, based on the opinion of the Court of Auditors and external accounting experts.

The Commission has improved the quality of its financial reports, and will continue to do so in the future. Clearly the improvement in the quality of the annual accounts is an ongoing process — thus the Commission reviews its presentation of financial information each year with the goal of improving its financial reports. This has, in the last couple of years, included the involvement of external experts in accounting.

The present accounting manual will be updated if important changes occur in the Commission's activities. It is being redrafted in order to be in line with the new accounting standards and integrated accounting system as part of the modernisation project.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/329

---

(2004/C 84 E/0387)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Eircom telephone line rental charges in Ireland

Given the dominance of Eircom in the Irish fixed line phone market, and the fact that Ireland's line rental charges are currently the highest in the EU at EUR 22,50.

Can the Commission comment on the decision of ComReg, Ireland's telecoms regulator, to approve a telephone line rental increase from 4 February 2004 which will bring monthly fixed line rental charges at Eircom to just under EUR 24?

Can the Commission advise on the impact this will have as regards competition within the single market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Under Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union, ComReg may not approve tariffs of dominant undertakings which would infringe Article 82 of the EC Treaty such as excessive tariffs. As regards the envisaged line rental charge increase by Eircom, the Commission understands that the latter is part of a process to align this charge to the underlying cost, a process known as ‘tariff rebalancing’ (1). This process involves, on the one hand, decreases of usage charges and, on the other, increases of fixed charges, such as the line rental, to reflect the change in the relative cost of the relevant network elements of digitized communication networks. Under the price cap imposed by ComReg, Eircom reduced its regulated retail tariffs each year on average by an amount equal to the consumer price index (CPI) minus 8 %. From 2004 onwards, ComReg does not allow Eircom to increase its regulated tariffs by more than the evolution of the CPI. In such circumstances, ComReg could not be considered to be approving tariffs contrary to the competition rules of the EC Treaty. One should also take into account that entrants will only invest in alternative access infrastructure if Eircom's retail price allows them a sufficient margin on the cost of rolling out such infrastructure.

Under the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, ComReg will in the coming months review, among others, the market for access to the public telephone network at a fixed location for residential customers in Ireland. In this context it will examine the market power of Eircom and assess the possible impact of the pricing strategy of the latter on competition, and, depending on the outcome, propose remedies. ComReg will, under Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC (2) notify its assessment and the envisaged remedies, if any, to the Commission, which will have the opportunity to give its comments.

---

(1)  See recital 20 of Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, OJ L 74, 22.3.1996, p.13. Although this Directive has been repealed and replaced by Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002, OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, the recital explains the Commission's approach to tariff rebalancing.

(2)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/330 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/330

---

(2004/C 84 E/0388)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Financial collapse of Parmalat: protecting savers and setting up a supervisory body

The financial collapse of the multinational Parmalat is an unprecedented and very serious episode for Italy that has embroiled thousands of Italian small investors (approximately 80 000 bond holders and 40 000 shareholders) and which could potentially damage financial credibility and lead to a general lack of trust in our country in the future, not least amongst foreign investors.

Sources of information have indicated that one of the main causes of this financial collapse was the certification of false and misleading accounts of Parmalat by a leading auditor, Deloitte & Touche, who apparently hid the true nature of the company's balance of assets. Furthermore, press reports indicate that the competent national authorities, Banca d'Italia and Consob, also failed to carry out effective controls, despite having been informed of all the dubious activities of Parmalat in the past.

The press further reports that the case has led to the involvement of a number of Italian credit institutions, such as Capitalia, Banca Intesa, Monte dei Paschi, San Paolo Imi, Unicredit and Bnl, along with a number of European banking institutions, including some of the leading institutions on the world's financial markets, such as Deutsche Bank, these institutions having issued an uncontrolled number of non-reimbursable bonds.

For all these reasons, the Parmalat affair has been called the ‘European Enron’, although in reality it is more serious than the American scandal, as America's GDP is far greater than Italy's.

The Commission:

| 1. | What steps does it consider can be taken to protect the savers involved? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps does it consider can be taken to protect the savers involved?

| 2. | What instruments can be adopted to avoid further activities of this type in future and to limit as far as possible savers' exposure to them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What instruments can be adopted to avoid further activities of this type in future and to limit as far as possible savers' exposure to them?

| 3. | Does not the Commission think it possible to set up a supervisory and control body at European level (a kind of European SEC) with power of inspection and sanction, under the direct control of the ECB, able to verify the effectiveness and transparency of the stock market so as to provide the best protection for investors? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does not the Commission think it possible to set up a supervisory and control body at European level (a kind of European SEC) with power of inspection and sanction, under the direct control of the ECB, able to verify the effectiveness and transparency of the stock market so as to provide the best protection for investors?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission does not comment on ongoing legal procedures. As the investigation is still in progress, it is too early to draw any final conclusions from this complex case.

The Financial Services Action Plan contains a number of measures which specifically aim at improving investor protection throughout the Union. A number of measures provided for in this Action Plan (such as the Regulation 1606/2002/EC of 14 September 2002 on the adoption of international accounting standards (1), Directive 2003/6/EC of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (2) and Directive 2003/71/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading (3)) have been adopted recently by the European Parliament and the Council. Other measures (such as the Proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of transparency requirements with regard to information about issues whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market) are in an advanced stage of negotiation. Furthermore, in its Communications of 21 May 2003 on Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the EU and on Reinforcing the statutory audit in the EU, the Commission has listed a number of initiatives which it intends to take in order to improve corporate governance and the quality of the statutory audit. Following the Parmalat case, the Commission intends to accelerate some of the proposals contained in these Communications.

Although these various measures, once they have been implemented by Member States, will not prevent corporate failures in the future, they will make it more difficult for such failures to happen, thereby contributing to the protection of investors.

As far as the supervision of capital markets is concerned, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) was officially established by Commission Decision in June 2001. The role of CESR is to improve coordination among European Securities Regulators, to act as an advisory group to assist the Commission, in particular in its preparation of draft implementing measures in the field of securities regulation and to work to ensure more consistent and timely day to day implementation of Community legislation in the Member States. It is not the task of the European Central Bank (ECB) to supervise securities markets. Likewise, recently two new committees in the banking: the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) and insurance: the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS) fields have been set by the Commission to enhance European regulatory cooperation, and to provide advice to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 243, 11.9.2002.

(2)  OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.

(3)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/332 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/332

---

(2004/C 84 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Linguistic discrimination in job descriptions

In its replies to a number of written questions tabled between 2001 and 2003, the Commission stated its intention to use its legal powers to combat the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements published by technical support agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private firms (co)financed by the European Commission.

However, between September and December 2003 alone, some 60 advertisements for posts at such firms and organisations (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15) were published stipulating ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speaker’.

On what legal basis can the Commission take action over job advertisements that use a ‘native speaker’ criterion? On what occasions has the Commission made use thereof?

Has the Commission made contact with the firms Intrasoft and Ogilvy, as it undertook to do in its reply to Written Question E-2226/03 (1), and what has been the result of this contact?

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 236.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/332 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/332

---

(2004/C 84 E/0390)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/04

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination in job advertisements

A number of magazines repeatedly publish job advertisements seeking to recruit applicants with English as their mother tongue, although the jobs are within EU institutions or at consultancy firms focusing on European policy. Particular emphasis is placed on linguistic background as a criterion for recruitment (‘English mother tongue’/‘native English speaker’: examples can be seen at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15). These advertisements discriminate against applicants with equivalent professional qualifications and a very good knowledge of English, but whose mother tongue is not English.

Discrimination of this kind on the basis of linguistic background is expressly prohibited under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| 1. | What steps has the Commission taken to prevent such discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps has the Commission taken to prevent such discrimination?

| 2. | Is the Commission considering including a ban on discrimination on the grounds of linguistic background in the Community action programme to combat discrimination (Council Decision No 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission considering including a ban on discrimination on the grounds of linguistic background in the Community action programme to combat discrimination (Council Decision No 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000)?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/332 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/332

---

(2004/C 84 E/0391)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Job advertisements for ‘native speakers’

The European Commission has supported the view expressed in a number of parliamentary questions on the use of the term ‘native speakers’ in job advertisements that the use of terms such as ‘mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ contravenes Community law on the free movement of workers. The Commission has also emphasised its intention to use its legal powers, where necessary, to prohibit the use of terms such as ‘native speaker’ in job advertisements.

Technical support offices, non-governmental organisations and certain firms engaged in European activities have persisted in publishing job advertisements aimed exclusively at ‘native English speakers’ and applicants with ‘English mother tongue’. Recent examples can be found at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15.

What action does the Commission intend to take against firms and NGOs that stipulate ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speakers’ in their job advertisements? Does the Commission intend to do more to prevent such violations of the principle of the free movement of workers?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/333 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/333

---

(2004/C 84 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination — native speakers

In its answer to Written Question E-2764/02 (1), the Commission acknowledges that a ‘native speaker’ condition in recruitment announcements ‘is not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of workers, as it is unlawfully discriminatory. Therefore the Commission considers that the use of this term in job advertisements is prohibited by Community law.’

Over the last year, Commission-funded European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organisations and private firms have advertised more than 700 vacancies at European level which have been set aside exclusively for ‘native English speakers’ or ‘English mother tongue’ applicants. For those vacancies, no-one with ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English was looked for; rather, and expressly, only native English-speakers. However, such advertisements are still frequently published. These days, organisations are replacing terms such as ‘English mother tongue’ by ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’ and ‘English native speaker level’ and are subsequently interviewing only English native-speakers.

| 1. | Does the Commission intend to combat this? If so, how? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission intend to combat this? If so, how? If not, why not?

| 2. | Does the Commission also intend to work in future with organisations which discriminate against non-native English-speakers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission also intend to work in future with organisations which discriminate against non-native English-speakers?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04 and E-0241/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its reply to Written Questions E-0046/04 by Mr Dhaene and E-0086/04 by Mrs Maes (2) on this subject.

The Community action programme to combat discrimination, adopted by the Council Decision of 27 November 2000, is based on Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which gives the Community jurisdiction to combat discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Discrimination based on language is not, therefore, one of the areas potentially covered by the programme, and the Commission does not intend to fund such activities.

The Commission has written to the companies Intrasoft and Ogilvy in order to draw their attention to this problem and to inform them that they should take this into account when recruiting personnel.

With regard to Intrasoft, which had been contacted by the Commission following previous parliamentary questions on this matter, the Commission notes that this company no longer uses discriminatory wording in job advertisements on its website; the Commission has, nevertheless, written to this company to remind it of the rules concerning this matter.

---

(1)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 207.

(2)  See page 302.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/334 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/334

---

(2004/C 84 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0203/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Spanish Fuel Quality Law — Royal Decree 1700/2003

In a recent Royal Decree (Real Decreto 1700/2003) implementing Directive 2003/17 (1) on fuel quality, the Spanish government has intentionally deviated from requirements under European fuel quality legislation for gasoline by changing the volatility (RVP) specifications in the national law.

The Spanish Decree also deviates from the European biodiesel FAME standard, agreed under the auspices of the European standards organisation, as regards iodine specifications.

How will the Commission react to the Spanish law in order to ensure that EU environmental legislation is uniformly applied in all Member States?

How would these changes to fuel quality specifications affect vehicle emissions and the attainment of objectives agreed under the Auto-Oil Programmes as regards different air pollutants, and could these deviations have a distorting effect in the internal market?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

The attention of the Commission has already been drawn to the recently adopted Spanish Royal Decree (1700/2003) with regard to the apparent deviations from the requirements of Directive 2003/17/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 on the quality of petrol and diesel fuels. In the short term, the Commission is investigating this case with regard to deviations from the legal requirements laid down in Directive 98/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 (2) and the European bio diesel FAME standard, as raised by the Honourable Member.

In the longer term, as part of its review of Directive 2003/17/EC, the Commission will examine the compatibility of the specifications for petrol and diesel with increased use of bio fuels in the transport sector. Amongst other issues, the review will examine the question of the volatility specifications for petrol in the light of an increased use of ethanol, any potential effect on air quality objectives and any problems that may affect the driveability of motor vehicles. In so doing the Commission will take into account the costs and benefits of any change to the specifications and ensure there is no distortion of the functioning of the internal market. It will take into account the recently-adopted bio fuels directive (Directive 2003/30/EC (3)), which requires Member States to set targets on the use of bio fuels and which highlights the need to adapt standards in order to permit this. As specified in Article 9 of Directive 2003/17/EC, this review is due to be completed before the end of 2005.

Until any proposal to amend the legislation resulting from the review is agreed by the Council and the Parliament, the requirements of Directive 2003/17/EC must continue to be respected and applied by the Member States. Therefore, the Commission has opened a case against Spain concerning the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2003, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, as amended by Directive 2003/17/EC, OJ L 76, 22.3.2003.

(3)  OJ L 123, 17.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/335

---

(2004/C 84 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Allegations of manoeuvring to seize property owned by building cooperatives in Greece

There has been a stream of allegations from numerous building cooperatives in Greece (such as ‘I YGIA’, which owns land at Saronida, Attica, and whose members have already appealed to Parliament's Committee on Petitions, the cooperative of employees of the Bank of Greece, which owns land at Anavissos, Attica, etc.), that the Greek authorities are continually obstructing the development of the property of which the cooperatives are the legal owners. They allege that the ultimate objective is the seizure of their property by the Greek State. The executive committees of numerous building cooperatives (which represent 500 000 Greek citizens according to the Greek press) point out that, although they hold the legal deeds to the property and have been recognised officially by the Greek State for almost 40 years, the Greek authorities constantly create obstacles through their administrative departments, compelling the cooperatives continuously to bring actions before the Greek courts, which duly rule in their favour. Despite that, the Greek authorities (in particular the Ministry for the Environment, Planning and Public Works) continue to concoct further obstacles with the aim — allegedly — of confiscating the cooperatives' property in violation of court rulings.

Is such alleged manoeuvring in order to seize property belonging to building cooperatives consistent with Community law? What action can the Commission take to put an end to the tactics adopted by the Greek authorities and to ensure that the members of the above cooperatives obtain the land to which they are entitled?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Since this matter is not covered by Community law, the Commission does not consider itself competent to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would also point out that any person who considers their fundamental rights to have been violated may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights once they have exhausted all the legal remedies available in their own country.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/335

---

(2004/C 84 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/04

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Alcohol ignition interlock devices (‘alcolocks’)

Trials are now being conducted in some parts of Sweden with ‘alcolocks’ on buses. Does the Commission consider that a Member State can require all vehicles in the country to be fitted with ‘alcolocks’ in order to improve road safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

If a Member State should decide to make the installation of alcohol ignition interlock devices obligatory, it would have to notify the Commission of the full draft technical regulation as required by the Community rules on the notification of technical regulations. If the measure were then to be considered compatible with Community legislation for vehicles registered in that Member State, the latter would still have to comply with international agreements allowing the circulation of vehicles registered in other States.

Member States have to authorise the sale and first registration of type-approved private cars which are covered by a European certificate of conformity. For other categories of vehicles, particularly public transport vehicles, the Commission has proposed a staggered timetable which is currently being considered by the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission recognises the potential of alcohol ignition interlock devices. At the end of 2003 it launched a study to evaluate the possible applications for such systems. However, at present, given their high cost and the need for frequent recalibration, the Commission considers that such systems should be installed only as an alternative penalty for drink-driving offences, and not as a general measure which, a priori, would only be useful for a small proportion of drivers.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/336 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/336

---

(2004/C 84 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Timely development and production of drugs to combat the merging of avian influenza virus H5N1 and influenza A occurring in humans

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the source of infection which recently emerged in Vietnam for ‘bird flu’ (avian influenza A), a constantly mutating virus which, in this instance, has occurred as variant H5N1? Is the Commission aware that it affects domestically kept birds in particular, such as poultry, but that the preventive culling of millions of birds in Vietnam could not prevent the virus from claiming five lives between 30 December 2003 and 19 January 2004 or, now, from spreading to South Korea and Japan via bird droppings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the source of infection which recently emerged in Vietnam for ‘bird flu’ (avian influenza A), a constantly mutating virus which, in this instance, has occurred as variant H5N1? Is the Commission aware that it affects domestically kept birds in particular, such as poultry, but that the preventive culling of millions of birds in Vietnam could not prevent the virus from claiming five lives between 30 December 2003 and 19 January 2004 or, now, from spreading to South Korea and Japan via bird droppings?

| 2. | Is the Commission bearing in mind the possibility that the virus will combine naturally with a human pathogen known as the influenza A virus and subsequently reach Europe in a form which cannot be combated with currently available anti-viral drugs and that this will lead to a recurrence of the 1918-1919 pandemic which claimed 40 to 50 million lives? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission bearing in mind the possibility that the virus will combine naturally with a human pathogen known as the influenza A virus and subsequently reach Europe in a form which cannot be combated with currently available anti-viral drugs and that this will lead to a recurrence of the 1918-1919 pandemic which claimed 40 to 50 million lives?

| 3. | Are attempts already being made within the EU to combine the two viruses artificially, with a view to developing antibodies in time and making them available on a sufficient scale? In which Member States is this taking place? Who has the authority to take decisions on this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are attempts already being made within the EU to combine the two viruses artificially, with a view to developing antibodies in time and making them available on a sufficient scale? In which Member States is this taking place? Who has the authority to take decisions on this?

| 4. | Is the research referred to in question 3 being obstructed or restricted in any way, for fear that a virus whose production has been accelerated through human intervention cannot be kept in isolation and that, potentially, this will cause an epidemic? Are there EU Member States in which, because of those fears, such research is not permitted? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the research referred to in question 3 being obstructed or restricted in any way, for fear that a virus whose production has been accelerated through human intervention cannot be kept in isolation and that, potentially, this will cause an epidemic? Are there EU Member States in which, because of those fears, such research is not permitted?

| 5. | What contribution is the Commission making towards ensuring that anti-viral drugs are made available in time on a sufficient scale in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What contribution is the Commission making towards ensuring that anti-viral drugs are made available in time on a sufficient scale in Europe?

Sources:TV Nederland 1, Netwerk 18.1.2004, www.netwerk.tv; World Health Organisation: www.who.int (in English); Erasmus medical Centre Rotterdam: www.virology.nl (in English).

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission is very well aware of the risks posed by the current Avian Influenza epidemics in certain Asian countries. It is working in close contact with the animal and public health authorities of the Member States, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and it has already adopted three measures to prevent the introduction of avian influenza from the countries affected in Asia (1), in line with the EU veterinary legislation based on international guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission is very well aware of the risks posed by the current Avian Influenza epidemics in certain Asian countries. It is working in close contact with the animal and public health authorities of the Member States, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and it has already adopted three measures to prevent the introduction of avian influenza from the countries affected in Asia (1), in line with the EU veterinary legislation based on international guidelines.

| 3. | In the context of the ‘Fifth Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme’, the Commission is providing financial support to the following projects on influenza virus infections in animals and humans and developing of new tools to combat influenza infections:






  — | ‘Pathogenesis and improved diagnosis and control of avian influenza infections’ (Project Reference: QLK2-CT-2002-01454, Community funding: EUR 1,84 million). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In the context of the ‘Fifth Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programme’, the Commission is providing financial support to the following projects on influenza virus infections in animals and humans and developing of new tools to combat influenza infections:

—

‘Pathogenesis and improved diagnosis and control of avian influenza infections’ (Project Reference: QLK2-CT-2002-01454, Community funding: EUR 1,84 million).

| — | ‘European surveillance network for influenza in pigs’, (Community financing: EUR 269 984). |
| --- | --- |

—

‘European surveillance network for influenza in pigs’, (Community financing: EUR 269 984).

| — | ‘Preparing for an influenza pandemic — Flupan’ (Project reference: QLK2-CT-2001-01786, Community funding: EUR 2,1 million). |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Preparing for an influenza pandemic — Flupan’ (Project reference: QLK2-CT-2001-01786, Community funding: EUR 2,1 million).

| — | ‘Novel vaccination strategies and vaccine formulations for epidemic and pandemic influenza control Novaflu2001’ (Project Reference: QLK2-CT-2002-01034, Community funding: EUR 1,76 million). |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Novel vaccination strategies and vaccine formulations for epidemic and pandemic influenza control Novaflu2001’ (Project Reference: QLK2-CT-2002-01034, Community funding: EUR 1,76 million).

| 4. | The Commission is not aware of any restrictions or obstructions to this research within the European Union. Laboratory safety and handling of microorganisms is regulated in Council Directives 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 (2) (Directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms), 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 (2) (Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms), 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (3) (Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work), in Directive 2000/54/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 (4) (Directive on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work), and guided by EU-norms EN 12128, 12738, 12740, and 12741. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is not aware of any restrictions or obstructions to this research within the European Union. Laboratory safety and handling of microorganisms is regulated in Council Directives 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 (2) (Directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms), 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 (2) (Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms), 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (3) (Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work), in Directive 2000/54/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 (4) (Directive on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work), and guided by EU-norms EN 12128, 12738, 12740, and 12741.

| 5. | The Commission consults widely on health protection issues in order to strengthen the Community preparedness and response to influenza pandemic threats. Part of these consultations concerns the pharmaceutical industry and its associations, including the European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA). On the Commission's initiative information is shared among the Member States' authorities on strategies for the availability of efficient antiviral drugs for prophylaxis and treatment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission consults widely on health protection issues in order to strengthen the Community preparedness and response to influenza pandemic threats. Part of these consultations concerns the pharmaceutical industry and its associations, including the European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA). On the Commission's initiative information is shared among the Member States' authorities on strategies for the availability of efficient antiviral drugs for prophylaxis and treatment.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2004/84/EC of 23.1.2004, OJ L 17, 24.1.2004, Commission Decision 2004/93/EC of 29.1.2004, OJ L 27, 30.1.2004, and Commission Decision 2004/122/EC of 6.2.2004, OJ L 36, 7.2.2004.

(2)  OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(3)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(4)  OJ L 262, 17.10.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/338 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/338

---

(2004/C 84 E/0397)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0235/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Violation of human rights of Cacarica communities in Colombia

For some years now, Colombia has been ravaged by violence between the government-backed army paramilitaries and various guerrilla movements. This violence has also affected Colombian citizens, directly or indirectly. Members of the Cacarica communities, who live in the Cacarica river basin, in the departamento of Chocó, say they are being forced to leave their homes.

In 2000, these Cacarica communities reached agreement with the government of the then president Pastrana allowing their safe return. They also urged that, as private citizens, they should not be affected by the conflict. With the help of international organisations and the Justicia y Paz Commission, few problems arose in the initial phase after their return.

Recently, however, the Cacarica communities have been accused by both the military and the guerilla fighters of siding with their respective enemies. These accusations have been accompanied by renewed violence. Even human rights activists have been threatened, and recent statements by President Uribe and certain of his ministers have called into question the legitimacy of the work carried out by human rights organisations.

Has the European Commission already reacted to the violations of human rights in Colombia?

If so, has the Colombian Government already reacted to this approach?

If not, can the Commission urge the Colombian Government to adopt the UNHCR's recommendations, guarantee the protection of human rights activists and strive to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, which has already lasted a number of years?

In the event that the Colombian Government has not responded or does not respond to the Commission's approach, does the Commission intend to impose sanctions on Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission fully supports the Colombian Government in its struggle against terrorism, the production of, and traffic in, illegal drugs and in its sustained efforts to establish a state which exercises all its functions everywhere in Colombian territory and guarantees the safety of all its citizens. Like the Honourable Member, the Commission also attaches the greatest importance — and pays particular attention — to the human rights situation in Colombia, particularly the rights of those displaced by the conflict.

This was made very clear at recent meetings between members of the Commission and of the Colombian Government (visit by Vice-President Santos to Brussels on 2 December 2003, visit by Mr Patten, Member of the Commission, to Colombia on 21/22 January 2004, visit by President Uribe to Brussels and Strasbourg on 9/10 February 2004). More specifically, the Commission expressed its hope that the '27 recommendations' drawn up by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as set out in the London Declaration of 10 July 2004, would be implemented promptly. The Commission also informed the Colombian Government of its hope that when displaced persons returned home they did so voluntarily and only when all conditions, particularly that of safety, had been fulfilled.

Support for a negotiated solution to the conflict in Colombia is the corner stone of the EU's policy on Colombia. In particular, the Commission supports the efforts deployed by the UN Secretary-General through his special Adviser, Mr James LeMoyne.

The Commission regards non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society as essential partners in the search for a lasting negotiated solution in Colombia and has stated so publicly and repeatedly (1). What is more, historically, some 50 % of all Community programmes have been implemented via NGOs.

In addition, the Commission provides specific support for the defenders of human rights and displaced persons. Colombia is one of the target countries and main beneficiaries of the ‘European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights’ (Budget Article 19 04 03). A total of 19 projects is under way, involving over EUR 15 million, 19 local NGOs, 7 European NGOs, 2 universities and the Colombian Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Displaced persons benefit from both the emergency humanitarian aid provided by ECHO, the European Humanitarian Aid Office (EUR 8 million in 2003, spread over 13 European NGOs, Budget Chapter 23 02), and from the instrument specifically for displaced persons (Budget Article 19 09 03, which provided just under EUR 10 million in 2003).

Recently, the conclusions of the Foreign Relations Council of 26 January 2004 also showed that the human rights situation, like the humanitarian situation, are an integral part of the European Union's foreign and security policy.

Concerning the particular question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is monitoring the situation of the Cacarica communities in Colombia very closely, in particular through the human rights office of its Delegation in Colombia.

---

(1)  http://www.delcol.cec.eu.int/es/novedades/boletin_61.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/339 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/339

---

(2004/C 84 E/0398)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Fees at the European Schools

Some weeks ago, the European Commission wrote a letter to the Board of Governors of the European Schools proposing a drastic increase in the level of school fees for pupils at the European Schools. There is even talk of raising the annual fee to EUR 12 500 per pupil. Can further clarification be provided regarding the Commission's proposal and the reasons for this drastic increase?

Pupils at the European Schools are divided into three categories. Each category pays a different amount in fees. Can further clarity be provided on the division of pupils into categories, the respective level of fees for pupils of different categories, and future trends?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Article 1 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools specifies that the prime purpose of the Schools is ‘to educate together children of the staff of the European Communities’. Those pupils are defined as category 1 pupils and no fees are paid by their parents because approximately 60 % of the European Schools' funding is provided from the EU budget. Articles 28 and 29 of the same Convention allow for Participation Agreements to be drawn up with other organisations governed by public or private law so that the children of their staff may attend the European Schools. These are defined as category 2 pupils, and the bodies with which the agreements are concluded pay fees which cover 100 % of the calculated cost of their education in each European School. In addition to the children referred to above, the Convention also allows for ‘other children’ to attend the European Schools, ‘within the limits set by the Board of Governors’. These are defined as category 3 pupils and, because of the EU Budget subsidies paid to the Schools, the fees paid are much lower than the relevant costs. Charges are currently EUR 2 680 per place for primary school and EUR 3 657 per place for secondary school annually. These charges plainly do not meet the average annual cost per pupil across the European Schools of almost EUR 11 000, reaching as much as EUR 16 500 per year in the European School in Bergen, EUR 16 000 in Mol and EUR 13 700 in Culham.

The necessarily increased budgetary requirements of the Schools as a consequence of enlargement, the budgetary restrictions of the EU budget, and the difficulty in justifying large subsidies for the education of pupils whose parents are not connected with the EU Institutions combine to make necessary increases in fees towards levels which relate more directly to real costs. In its capacity as a Member of the Board of Governors of the European Schools (which is otherwise drawn from all Member States), and fulfilling its duties of preparing submissions to the EU budgetary authorities and executing the approved budget, the Commission has recently proposed that the fees for category 3 pupils be increased gradually over the next five years. The proposal differentiates between a) new category 3 pupils for whom the increase would, by 2010, mean annual fees of EUR 9 400 for new primary and EUR 12 500 for new secondary pupils and b) existing category 3 pupils for whom the increase would, by 2010, mean annual fees of EUR 5 800 for primary, and EUR 8 000 for secondary pupils.

The proposal has yet to be adopted by the Board of Governors.

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that the parents of many existing category 3 pupils already benefit from a system of substantial exoneration of fees and that will continue until the end of their children's studies.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/340

---

(2004/C 84 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians and Buddhists in the Lao People's Democratic Republic

The authorities of the Lao People's Democratic Republic recently ordered the arrest of 11 Lao Christians. According to statements made to the Vientiane Times by Mr Yong Chanthalangy, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, those arrested are accused of ‘possessing poisons’. In the same interview, Mr Yong stressed that his country recognises complete freedom of religion, and he rejected the accusations made by various organisations campaigning for the respect of fundamental rights in Laos, according to which the Christians had been arrested for having attended a Christmas mass. The Paris-based Lao Movement for Human Rights had reported the arrest of 11 Christians, most of whom belonged to the Khmu and Oey ethnic minorities, on 28-29 December in the province of Attapeu. At the same time, the movement criticised once again the persecution to which many Christians and Buddhists are subjected, and emphasised that declarations made by the Vientiane authorities advocating freedom of religion are aimed primarily at donor countries and organisations. In reality, religious freedom is viewed as a threat to the regime in power. The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the persons in question ‘had not been charged but were arrested for questioning on charges of possession of poisons’. Mr Yong also denied reports by Radio Free Asia and other foreign news agencies that 10 Christians had been arrested in the southern province of Savannakhet because they were organising a demonstration against the arrests of Christians in Attepeu.

What information does the Commission have on the arrests of Lao Christians in the provinces of Attapeu and Savannakhet? Does the Commission not believe that arrests of Lao citizens without any charges being made are a manifest violation of democratic principles, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which are the foundations of the EU-Lao PDR Cooperation Agreement? Does the Commission still believe that the Cooperation Agreement should be upheld, despite systematic and extremely serious violations by the Vientiane authorities? Did the Commission raise these issues during the last meeting of the EU-Lao PDR Joint Committee on 7 January 2004? If so, what outcome was achieved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The Lao government's attitude towards religion has changed during recent years, with the majority of members of the politburo of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party now openly participating in the country's biggest Buddhist ceremonies.

However, the Commission is aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in certain parts of Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their religious affiliation in particular provinces. There have also been reports of arrest and detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. This was done despite the fact that the Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’.

Regarding the specific cases raised in the question, according to Commission sources the 11 people arrested in Attapeu in December 2003 were released a few weeks ago. The Commission has not been able to confirm the reports of alleged arrests in Svannaketh.

The Commission maintains a policy of constructive political dialogue with the Laotian government, combined with continued support to the most vulnerable groups in the Lao society through EC-assisted development programmes. The suspension of aid until basic human rights are respected should be considered as the last resort, as it would be likely to impact badly on the populations whose rights are violated.

Should, however, the situation deteriorate to such a point that the EU cooperation with Laos had to be put in question, the Commission would be ready to review the present EC co-operation framework with Laos and consider measures as appropriate, in full co-ordination with Member States and the Parliament.

Human rights concerns, including religious freedom, were raised in the recent EC-Laos Joint Committee meeting and it was agreed to set up an Informal Working Group on ‘cooperation in the areas of institution building and administrative reform, governance and human rights’. The Commission will be able to further discuss this matter with the Laotian Government in the Informal Working Group and encourage Laos to undertake additional measures to improve the situation for religious minorities.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/341 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/341

---

(2004/C 84 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Huge discount from banks to the ‘Democratici di Sinistra’ party in violation of the principle of free competition

On 22 December 2003, the banking syndicate providing credit to the Italian political party Democratici di Sinistra (Democrats of the Left) — headed by the Carisbo Bank (San Paolo — IMI Group), with a claim of around EUR 30 million, and also comprising Banca Intesa and Capitalia, each with claims of EUR 21 million, and Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with a claim of around EUR 3,5 million — reached an agreement on total debt clearance via a settlement transaction providing for the writing-off of 50 % of the colossal overall debt of EUR 235 million. This huge discount was granted to a political party in precisely the same period in which shareholders and bondholders in companies with ties to the above-mentioned banks saw their legitimate interests being damaged and in which the selfsame banks implemented a rigid policy on overdraft reduction vis-à-vis debtor SMEs.

Would the Commission agree that this privileged treatment, which contrasts with that afforded by many banks to ‘ordinary’ debtors, constitutes a grave and manifest violation of the principle of free competition enshrined in Community law?

Will the European Central Bank call on the Italian Central Bank, Bankitalia, to ensure respect for this principle and the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on European Union, not least because some of the Italian banks concerned are Bankitalia shareholders (controllers ‘controlled’)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

In the area of competition policy, the Commission is responsible for the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

Article 81 of the EC Treaty prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions of associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. According to Article 82 of the EC Treaty, any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

The facts described by the Honourable Member do not amount to an infringement of the competition rules, in particular articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, since there is no evidence of a prevention, restriction or distortion of competition or an abuse of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it that may affect trade between Member States.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that it cannot take a position on matters concerning the European Central Bank.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/342

---

(2004/C 84 E/0401)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Relocation and unemployment

Yet another multinational in the textile sector — Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. — now appears likely to cease activity, raising the spectre of unemployment for over 400 workers, most of them women, at its plant in Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal).

In view of the seriousness of this state of affairs, in a region and a Member State where unemployment is constantly rising, it is essential that the Commission and the Portuguese government take all possible measures to prevent yet another multinational from closing its operations in Portugal and, possibly, relocating to another European country.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Were any Community funds received by the firm Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. of Aldeia Nova, Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal? If so, can the Commission provide details? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Were any Community funds received by the firm Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. of Aldeia Nova, Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal? If so, can the Commission provide details?

| 2. | Was any financial support granted by the EU to the parent company or any of its branches? If so, can the Commission provide details? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Was any financial support granted by the EU to the parent company or any of its branches? If so, can the Commission provide details?

| 3. | What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the constant relocations of multinationals and the resulting unemployment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the constant relocations of multinationals and the resulting unemployment?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the company ‘Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda.’ has received the following support.

| 1. | European Social Fund (ESF):








  (in euros) |
| --- | --- |
| | Old fund
  Ref. 891013 P1 | Community Support Framework
  (CSF) II PEDIP II (1) | Community Support Framework
  (CSF) III POEFDS |
| FSE | 23 146,19 | 51 892,73 | 5 250,68 |
| OSS | 18 937,79 | 17 297,58 | 3 150,40 |

1.

European Social Fund (ESF):

(in euros)

Old fund

Ref. 891013 P1

Community Support Framework

(CSF) II PEDIP II (1)

Community Support Framework

(CSF) III POEFDS

FSE

23 146,19

51 892,73

5 250,68

OSS

18 937,79

17 297,58

3 150,40

| 2. | European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (CSF II):






  Programme | Modernisation of the fabric of the economy |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Project | Diagnostics and Options for Development |
| Date of approval | 27.07.1995 |
| Location | Vila Nova de Gaia |
| Operator | Brax Portuguesa — Fabrica de Confecções LDA |
| Total investment | EUR 20 340,60 |
| Eligible investment | EUR 20 340,60 |
| ERDF approved | EUR 10 171,57 |
| ERDF paid (2) | EUR 10 196,2 |

2.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (CSF II):

Programme

Modernisation of the fabric of the economy

Project

Diagnostics and Options for Development

Date of approval

27.07.1995

Location

Vila Nova de Gaia

Operator

Brax Portuguesa — Fabrica de Confecções LDA

Total investment

EUR 20 340,60

Eligible investment

EUR 20 340,60

ERDF approved

EUR 10 171,57

ERDF paid (2)

EUR 10 196,2

With specific regard to the ESF, the Commission would point out that funding for vocational training is not subject to requirements for the longevity of the businesses concerned but rather to the access and eligibility criteria laid down in the rules applying at the time for awarding ESF funding.

The Commission believes that any investment in human resources is very important at national and regional level. It must be underlined that ESF funding does not support a company as such, but provides an investment in human capital, so that the training measures from which individuals benefit improve their employability. Moreover, as far as the Commission knows, the business in question has not infringed the rules for support from the Structural Funds.

The Commission would also like, firstly, to point out that Council Directive 98/59/EC (3) provides for information and consultation with the workers' representatives in cases where the employer is contemplating such redundancies. These consultations should be carried out in good time with a view to reaching agreement and cover, at least, ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected as well as of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures. These measures aim, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

More generally, the Commission advocates the idea that, when deciding on their relocation, enterprises should always take into account the effects that those decisions could have on their employees as well as on the social and regional context. This has recently been underlined in the Commission Communication concerning Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) — A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development (4).

Furthermore, the Commission invited the European social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to applying a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring. The social partners agreed to incorporate this issue in their recently adopted pluriannual work programme (5)
   (6).

---

(1)  Specific programme for industrial development in Portugal.

(2)  The amount paid in euros is higher than the amount approved because of differences in the exchange rate between the time of approval and the time of payment.

(3)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(4)  COM(2002) 347 final.

(5)  As a strategic component of employment, training and social development policy.

(6)  Social Security's Budget.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/344 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/344

---

(2004/C 84 E/0402)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/04

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Community funding for the Greek National Cadastre

Can the Commission indicate the final amount of Community funding for the Greek National Cadastre and the nature of the measures being funded, stating whether funding is being provided solely under the ‘Information Society’ programme and to what extent it intends to provide additional funding in future?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

On 10 February 2003, the Greek authorities submitted to the Commission a proposal for continuing the Land Register in Greece. The outline of a business plan aiming to establish an operational land register by 2013, at a total cost of some EUR 500 million, has been agreed in principle.

In accordance with this revised Greek business plan, the land register project is divided into three modules which can start in parallel but which will be managed as separate groups of deliverables:

| — | the establishment of a digital database of registered property rights presently recorded on paper in mortgage offices; |
| --- | --- |

—

the establishment of a digital database of registered property rights presently recorded on paper in mortgage offices;

| — | the legal validation of registered rights, in particular to examine claims by the State, and to link property rights clearly to land parcels; |
| --- | --- |

—

the legal validation of registered rights, in particular to examine claims by the State, and to link property rights clearly to land parcels;

| — | the preparation and marketing of ancillary products and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

the preparation and marketing of ancillary products and services.

Since the legal framework determining the circumstances in which the State will claim ownership rights is still under review, co-financing by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is limited to the first module.

It covers the following actions:

| — | the creation of an Information Technology (IT) infrastructure for the digital registration of existing property rights, and to validate state ownership claims. This comprises a digital map of Greece, where each land parcel can be identified, with its associated rights. It will define the boundaries of areas for which there is a presumption of state ownership (forest lands, coastal strips), as well as of urban areas for which the State has recently renounced its claims relating to their past forest status, |
| --- | --- |

—

the creation of an Information Technology (IT) infrastructure for the digital registration of existing property rights, and to validate state ownership claims. This comprises a digital map of Greece, where each land parcel can be identified, with its associated rights. It will define the boundaries of areas for which there is a presumption of state ownership (forest lands, coastal strips), as well as of urban areas for which the State has recently renounced its claims relating to their past forest status,

| — | the digitalisation of existing rights retained by the mortgage offices in the metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessaloniki. This concerns some 12 million property rights out of an estimated total of 33 million property rights in Greece. It should enable a better service for land transactions through decentralised service centres and mortgage offices. |
| --- | --- |

—

the digitalisation of existing rights retained by the mortgage offices in the metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessaloniki. This concerns some 12 million property rights out of an estimated total of 33 million property rights in Greece. It should enable a better service for land transactions through decentralised service centres and mortgage offices.

As this is, in practice, an e-government project, it will be financed within the Operational Programme (OP) ‘Information Society’, with the Ktimatologio SA as the final beneficiary. The necessary credits will be assigned to this operational programme in the framework of the mid-term review.

The estimated budget is EUR 110 million and a Community contribution of 50 % (EUR 55 million) is requested. It will be completed by 2006 and only new contracts will be co-financed.

Although this proposal is the basis for an agreement with the Greek authorities, a firm decision for its cofinancing has not yet been taken. First, the OP ‘Information Society’ has to be revised in order to include this project. Secondly, the final beneficiary must submit its proposal to the management authority of that programme for approval. Finally, as this constitutes a major project, an application for confirmation of its co-financing should be submitted to the Commission by the managing authority of the OP ‘Information Society’. The whole procedure is likely to take until the Autumn of 2004.

The Commission does not envisage, at this stage, any further financial contribution to this project. However, it will offer technical assistance for the implementation of the entire business plan from its Joint Research Centre, insofar as this is requested by the Greek authorities.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/345 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/345

---

(2004/C 84 E/0403)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece

Criticism has been voiced in the Greek press regarding the spate of propagandist media publicity in Greece (particularly on television) being given to ‘new hospitals’, ‘major projects’, ‘measures to improve educational standards’, etc. Many of which refer to the ‘2008 Community Support Framework’.

Is such publicity for EU-funded projects in the run-up to elections permissible under Regulation (EC) 1159/2000 (1)? How many months prior to the date of elections must all such publicity be halted? What penalties are imposable on Member States infringing the provisions of the above regulation? Can the Commission take immediate action to end such promotional activity?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds does not establish specific rules relating to pre-electoral publicity. However, the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece, for the period 2000-2006, states that information and publicity actions relating to Structural Funds interventions should be suspended two months before European, national, district or municipal elections. With regard to the national elections of 7 March 2004, the Commission was informed by the Greek authorities that they issued the necessary instructions on 8 January 2004 to all ministries and other bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds, in accordance with the CSF requirements.

The Commission has no information at its disposal suggesting a breach of the rules on this subject.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 30.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/346 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/346

---

(2004/C 84 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Arsenic acid

On 21 December, a large number of barrels of wood preservative were lost overboard from an Ethiopian ship off the coast of the Netherlands. The ship had departed from England and had also called at the port of Antwerp. Its ultimate destination was Ethiopia, via Bremen. An investigation has shown that there are numerous questions to be answered concerning the registration and labelling of the barrels/substances and the associated handling of the barrels/substances.

| 1. | The wood preservative CCA contains copper oxide, chromium trioxide and arsenic acid. In 1992, the Netherlands Government decided to change the name of arsenic acid to arsenic pentoxide. Is the Commission aware that the name of one of the three active substances (arsenic acid) has been replaced by a different name (arsenic pentoxide)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The wood preservative CCA contains copper oxide, chromium trioxide and arsenic acid. In 1992, the Netherlands Government decided to change the name of arsenic acid to arsenic pentoxide. Is the Commission aware that the name of one of the three active substances (arsenic acid) has been replaced by a different name (arsenic pentoxide)?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that these are two different chemical substances? According to disaster response experts, the substances require different approaches to disaster response or recovery. (Different UN numbers and GEVI (hazard identification) numbers). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that these are two different chemical substances? According to disaster response experts, the substances require different approaches to disaster response or recovery. (Different UN numbers and GEVI (hazard identification) numbers).

| 3. | Have other Member States acted in a similar way? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Have other Member States acted in a similar way?

| 4. | What implications does this have in relation to Regulation (EC) No 142/97 (1), in which only arsenic acid is mentioned as a classification? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What implications does this have in relation to Regulation (EC) No 142/97 (1), in which only arsenic acid is mentioned as a classification?

| 5. | What effect does this have on other legislation based on Regulation (EC) No 142/97? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What effect does this have on other legislation based on Regulation (EC) No 142/97?

| 6. | Is the Netherlands Government seeking to evade European law by means of this classification? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Netherlands Government seeking to evade European law by means of this classification?

| 7. | If so, what measures will the Commission take to deal with this? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If so, what measures will the Commission take to deal with this?

| 8. | What role does Transport Directive 2002/59/EC (2) play with regard to this classification? |
| --- | --- |

8.

What role does Transport Directive 2002/59/EC (2) play with regard to this classification?

| 9. | Did the competent authorities have a duty to notify other Member States of this transport operation, and did they comply in this case? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Did the competent authorities have a duty to notify other Member States of this transport operation, and did they comply in this case?

| 10. | If not, ought the ship to have left port? |
| --- | --- |

10.

If not, ought the ship to have left port?

| 11. | How damaging is it if labels and bills of lading relating to toxic substances do not correspond to the content? |
| --- | --- |

11.

How damaging is it if labels and bills of lading relating to toxic substances do not correspond to the content?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the decision adopted in 1992 by the Dutch Government according to which arsenic acid was renamed arsenic pentoxide. Neither is the Commission aware of other Member States having introduced similar modifications.

From a chemical point of view, arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide are two different compounds: the chemical formula of arsenic acid is AsH3O4 and the substance name is arsenic acid (CAS # 7778-39-4 and Einecs # 231-901-9); the chemical formula of arsenic pentoxide is As2O5 and the substance name is diarsenic pentoxide (CAS # 1303-28-2 and Einecs # 215-116-9). The former substance is easily obtained by dissolving the latter in water.

From a toxicological point of view, the two substances are equally toxic to humans and the environment. Both have a harmonised classification as category 1 carcinogens (may cause cancer to humans), are considered very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long term adverse effects in an aquatic environment pursuant to annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (3).

Although both the United Nations (UN) and International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code identify these substances with different numbers, the emergency measures to contain pollution caused by either one of the two substances are similar. Both substances are soluble in water. According to the IMDG Code, they may only be transported by ships in watertight packages. Therefore, for both compounds, the response to a disaster involves the recovery of the lost containers.

Indeed, only arsenic acid is mentioned in the priority list annexed to Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the delivery of information about certain existing substances pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC No 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of existing substances (4). Arsenic pentoxide is in none of the priority lists established pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 793/93. The classification and labelling of dangerous substances is governed by a different legislation, i.e. Council Directive 67/548/EEC.

However, arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide are both included in Commission Directive 2003/2/EC of 6 January 2003 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic (5) compounds according to which the use of wood treated with arsenic in consumer applications (e.g. in fencing and decking) is banned as of 30 June 2004 at the latest. A derogation is provided for certain professional uses under specific circumstances.

Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community vessel traffic and information system includes provisions concerning notification of ships' movements and their cargoes. It requires notably operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify the competent authority for the port of departure of several pieces of information, including the correct technical names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the UN numbers or the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes. However, the purpose of the Directive is not to set up requirements concerning labelling or classification of dangerous or polluting goods.

According to Directive 2002/59/EC, the competent authorities do not have a duty to notify other Member States on a routine basis, but they must be able to provide the information referred to in the Annex by electronic means on request by another Member State, in particular in case of accident or for other safety-related reasons. According to the Directive, the provision of information is not a condition for allowing the ship to leave port.

As regards maritime transport of chemicals, Appendix I of Annex II to the Marpol 73/78 Convention contains specific Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances. These provisions are relevant irrespectively of the labelling applied by the Member States. In addition, the IMDG Code is the standard guide to all aspects of handling dangerous goods and marine pollutants in sea transport. The Code entered into force on 1 January 2004 and is mandatory for Governments for adoption or for use as the basis for national regulations as they put the requirements of SOLAS 1974 and Marpol 73/78 Conventions into effect. The IMDG Code lays down basic principles; detailed recommendations for individual substances, materials and articles; and a number of recommendations for good operational practice including advice on terminology, packing, labelling storage, segregation and handling, and emergency response action.

---

(1)  OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 11.

(2)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10.

(3)  OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.

(4)  OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(5)  OJ L 4, 9.1.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/348 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/348

---

(2004/C 84 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   EU participation in a project to build a multi-purpose hall in Brussels

The Brussels Capital City Region intends to build a multi-purpose hall in the ‘European district’, in the so-called Van Maerlant block. According to the spokesman for the Brussels Chief Minister, Mr Ducarme, the European Union has agreed to co-finance the project, meeting 30 % of the total cost.

Is this information accurate?

What specific undertakings have been given to the Brussels Capital City Region?

What added value does the proposed multi-purpose hall offer the European institutions when set against the existing (and planned) infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The ‘Plan Médiateur’, a study commissioned by the Belgian government, produced ideas for 133 initiatives on which the Belgian authorities are consulting the public. Among those ideas was one which would involve the construction of a cultural centre in the Place Jean Rey the activities of which would be centred round the concept of ‘European culture’.

In the ‘Plan Médiateur’ co-financing from the European Institutions (Parliament, Council, Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee and Commission) of up to 30 % for the whole project was suggested.

The Commission welcomes the exercise as a contribution to the ongoing debate on ways to improve the ‘Quartier Européen’. As made clear in its Communication of 10 December 2003 (1), the Commission would like to work in partnership with the Belgian authorities in efforts to achieve a variety of possible improvements relating to the area.

However, the Honourable Member will wish to note that the Commission has yet to submit its comments to the Belgian authorities on the Plan Médiateur and there have been no formal discussions of any kind on any possible financial contribution.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 755 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/349 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/349

---

(2004/C 84 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Embryo and stem-cell research

In May 2003, I put to the Commission a written question (E-1494/03 (1)) concerning expressions of interest in connection with embryo and stem-cell research under the Sixth Framework Programme.

In its answer, the Commission states that of the 2 000 expressions of interest submitted concerning Priority 1 roughly 80 relate to stem-cell research (animal or human stem-cells).

In connection with Thematic Priority 1, 26 proposals relating to stem-cell research have been received. Three of those proposals would involve the use of preserved or isolated human embryo stem cells grown in culture.

The moratorium ran out on 31 December 2003, with the result that the EU can now subsidise stem-cell research.

In this context, can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Has the European Commission already approved applications for grants to finance stem-cell research? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the European Commission already approved applications for grants to finance stem-cell research?

| 2. | If so, how many grants have since been paid out? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, how many grants have since been paid out?

| 3. | From which Member States did these applications come? |
| --- | --- |

3.

From which Member States did these applications come?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

The results of the evaluation of the first call for proposals under the Sixth Research Framework Programme show there are currently 18 projects which may receive Community funding and which contain at least one research aspect involving the use of human stem cells. This number must still be regarded as preliminary and not final since some projects are still at the negotiating stage.

Twelve of these projects have been allocated to the thematic priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ and six to the priority ‘Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices’ (tissue engineering projects).

With regard to research projects which involve human embryo stem cells, there are only two under the priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’. In both cases, researchers wish to use lines of human embryo stem cells which were recorded in the register of the human embryo stem cells of the US National Institutes of Health (2) and were derived before 9 August 2001. The teams which wish to use these lines are based in Germany and Italy in the case of one project, and in Finland in the case of the other. These data cannot in any way be regarded as final since the negotiation of these two projects has not yet been completed and the Programme Committee set up pursuant to Article 6.3 of the Specific Programme Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area has not yet agreed to give them funding.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 127.

(2)  http://stemcells.nih.gov/registry/index.asp

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/350

---

(2004/C 84 E/0407)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0280/04

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   European Commission representation in Delhi

During a mission with the European Parliament Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea, I chanced upon the extraordinary accommodation of half the staff of the European Commission representation in Delhi.

That prompts me to ask the following questions:

| 1. | By how many persons has the staff of the European Commission representation in Delhi increased since ‘deconcentration’? What is the justification for that increase? For what specific tasks were new staff recruited? |
| --- | --- |

1.

By how many persons has the staff of the European Commission representation in Delhi increased since ‘deconcentration’? What is the justification for that increase? For what specific tasks were new staff recruited?

| 2. | Since what date has the European Commission representation been renting the fifth floor of the Taj Mahal Hotel, how many square metres are being rented there, and what is the monthly rental? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since what date has the European Commission representation been renting the fifth floor of the Taj Mahal Hotel, how many square metres are being rented there, and what is the monthly rental?

| 3. | Does the Commission feel that it is making a good impression on its relations with India and on the citizens of Delhi by renting a floor in a five-star luxury hotel? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission feel that it is making a good impression on its relations with India and on the citizens of Delhi by renting a floor in a five-star luxury hotel?

| 4. | By what date will the Commission terminate its lease and move to premises which are appropriate for diplomatic relations and, hence, significantly less expensive? |
| --- | --- |

4.

By what date will the Commission terminate its lease and move to premises which are appropriate for diplomatic relations and, hence, significantly less expensive?

| 5. | Will the Commission give an overview of its representations which have rented additional accommodation since deconcentration and indicate the additional cost, broken down by representation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Will the Commission give an overview of its representations which have rented additional accommodation since deconcentration and indicate the additional cost, broken down by representation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission would firstly like to recall the basic principle of devolution, namely that ‘anything that can be better managed and decided on the spot, close to what is happening on the ground, should not be managed or decided in Brussels. Deconcentration [SIC] therefore involves conferring on the Delegations the powers of technical, financial and contractual management for implementing Community aid that were formerly held by the Headquarters’. To enable them to meet their new responsibilities, the Delegations must be strengthened, especially in terms of human resources.
  In the case of India, the main areas involved are the following: trade and development of the private sector, civil society, NGO (non-governmental organisation) projects and operations, institutional support, human rights, refugees, reconstruction (e.g. Gujarat), environment and natural resources, social sectors such as health, education and gender issues.
  It should be noted that the Delegation in India also has regional responsibilities (Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan). It therefore takes on full financial and contractual responsibilities for the various countries it covers. This is reflected in the number of staff.
  Before devolution started in 2001, the Delegation in India consisted of 39 permanent posts, not including those of detached national officials and young experts, which derive from partnership with the Member States and are not permanent resources. In the wake of devolution, the Delegation in India now consists of 81 posts.
  The 42 extra posts are broken down as follows:






  — | 30 posts for the devolution of aid management (5 officials, 13 local agents, 11 local technical assistance agents (ALATs) and 1 individual expert); (+ 30) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would firstly like to recall the basic principle of devolution, namely that ‘anything that can be better managed and decided on the spot, close to what is happening on the ground, should not be managed or decided in Brussels. Deconcentration [SIC] therefore involves conferring on the Delegations the powers of technical, financial and contractual management for implementing Community aid that were formerly held by the Headquarters’. To enable them to meet their new responsibilities, the Delegations must be strengthened, especially in terms of human resources.

In the case of India, the main areas involved are the following: trade and development of the private sector, civil society, NGO (non-governmental organisation) projects and operations, institutional support, human rights, refugees, reconstruction (e.g. Gujarat), environment and natural resources, social sectors such as health, education and gender issues.

It should be noted that the Delegation in India also has regional responsibilities (Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan). It therefore takes on full financial and contractual responsibilities for the various countries it covers. This is reflected in the number of staff.

Before devolution started in 2001, the Delegation in India consisted of 39 permanent posts, not including those of detached national officials and young experts, which derive from partnership with the Member States and are not permanent resources. In the wake of devolution, the Delegation in India now consists of 81 posts.

The 42 extra posts are broken down as follows:

—

30 posts for the devolution of aid management (5 officials, 13 local agents, 11 local technical assistance agents (ALATs) and 1 individual expert); (+ 30)

| — | 3 local agent posts in the administration section to deal with the increased management burden associated with an increase in staff (1 local agent and 2 ALATs); (+ 3) |
| --- | --- |

—

3 local agent posts in the administration section to deal with the increased management burden associated with an increase in staff (1 local agent and 2 ALATs); (+ 3)

| — | 6 posts associated with the internalisation of technical assistance (2 local agents and 4 ALATs); (+ 6) |
| --- | --- |

—

6 posts associated with the internalisation of technical assistance (2 local agents and 4 ALATs); (+ 6)

| — | 4 posts (3 officials and 1 ALAT) created through redeployment of existing resources for reinforced monitoring of trade (1A) and political issues (1A + 1 ALAT) and for aid management (1A); (+4); |
| --- | --- |

—

4 posts (3 officials and 1 ALAT) created through redeployment of existing resources for reinforced monitoring of trade (1A) and political issues (1A + 1 ALAT) and for aid management (1A); (+4);

| — | on the other hand, 1 Α-official post was redeployed from the Delegation in India for the opening of the Delegation in Kathmandu; (- 1). |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, 1 Α-official post was redeployed from the Delegation in India for the opening of the Delegation in Kathmandu; (- 1).

| 2. | Several temporary solutions were examined to accommodate the additional staff. Of these, the most favourable was renting 31 rooms (1 308 m2) at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Compared to other proposals, its advantages were the absence of heavy investment in the installations and refurbishing of small temporary offices, and, compared with the other hotels analysed, it provided the cheapest solution. The monthly rent is INR 1 953 000 (EUR 34 036 equivalent to EUR 26 per m2 a month), including electricity, air-conditioning and heating, housekeeping and regular maintenance, and it is located at 500 m from the main Delegation's premises. This compares favourably with the rent paid at present for the Delegation's main building (65 Golf Links) which is EUR 29 700 for 837 m2 (equivalent to EUR 35,5 per m2 a month), excluding any operational or overhead expenses.
  The lease contract started on 15 May 2002 for a six-month (renewable) period. A new contract started on 16 February 2003 under the same conditions, and has been renewed since. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Several temporary solutions were examined to accommodate the additional staff. Of these, the most favourable was renting 31 rooms (1 308 m2) at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Compared to other proposals, its advantages were the absence of heavy investment in the installations and refurbishing of small temporary offices, and, compared with the other hotels analysed, it provided the cheapest solution. The monthly rent is INR 1 953 000 (EUR 34 036 equivalent to EUR 26 per m2 a month), including electricity, air-conditioning and heating, housekeeping and regular maintenance, and it is located at 500 m from the main Delegation's premises. This compares favourably with the rent paid at present for the Delegation's main building (65 Golf Links) which is EUR 29 700 for 837 m2 (equivalent to EUR 35,5 per m2 a month), excluding any operational or overhead expenses.

The lease contract started on 15 May 2002 for a six-month (renewable) period. A new contract started on 16 February 2003 under the same conditions, and has been renewed since.

| 3. | The renting of offices at the Taj Mahal Hotel is a temporary and provisional installation of part of the Delegation's staff. The main Delegation building, unsuitable for the present size of the Delegation, is still at 6 5 Golf Links. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The renting of offices at the Taj Mahal Hotel is a temporary and provisional installation of part of the Delegation's staff. The main Delegation building, unsuitable for the present size of the Delegation, is still at 6 5 Golf Links.

| 4. | The temporary solution of renting additional offices at the Taj Mahal Hotel was foreseen to last six months, i.e. until 15 August 2003. However, the difficulties existing in the real estate market, which have increased because of Indo-Pakistani tensions, has made the research even more difficult, and the lease was renewed for a further six months, i.e. until 15 February 2004. The last proposal for a permanent solution identified at the end of 2003 was turned down because of security concerns of the building. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The temporary solution of renting additional offices at the Taj Mahal Hotel was foreseen to last six months, i.e. until 15 August 2003. However, the difficulties existing in the real estate market, which have increased because of Indo-Pakistani tensions, has made the research even more difficult, and the lease was renewed for a further six months, i.e. until 15 February 2004. The last proposal for a permanent solution identified at the end of 2003 was turned down because of security concerns of the building.

| 5. | As the devolution exercise is still ongoing, it is not possible to provide details of the total costs concerned. Only when the whole process is finished will the Commission be able to give precise figures concerning the actual budgetary impact of the increase of its staff in Delegations. As the Commission does not rent separate office premises solely for devolution purposes, in many cases the increase in office space requirements is covered through an extension of the building already rented. |
| --- | --- |

5.

As the devolution exercise is still ongoing, it is not possible to provide details of the total costs concerned. Only when the whole process is finished will the Commission be able to give precise figures concerning the actual budgetary impact of the increase of its staff in Delegations. As the Commission does not rent separate office premises solely for devolution purposes, in many cases the increase in office space requirements is covered through an extension of the building already rented.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/351 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/351

---

(2004/C 84 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0282/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Identification of the outermost regions on official Community maps

Article 299(2) of the Treaty identifies the outermost regions, which, naturally, are not to be confused with the overseas countries and territories referred to in Article 299(3) and listed in Annex II, or with other regions or countries having a different status and referred to elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the Official Publications Service of the European Communities, was still, in 2003 and under the Commission's copyright, perpetuating the error of referring to the outermost regions as ‘non-continental and overseas territories of the Member States’.

In the case of the Autonomous Region of the Azores (mentioned only summarily as ‘the Azores’), one of the outermost regions with a geographical location outside Europe, not one of the islands is actually named, and the only town mentioned is Ponta Delgada: the historic towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta are passed over.

Can the Commission explain why it has not identified these regions correctly, i.e. as outermost regions, and has used a term which could create confusion with the overseas territories listed in Annex II?

Has the Commission any objection to the future inclusion in the maps concerned of the designation ‘Autonomous Region of the Azores’ and the inclusion of the towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to maps which the Commission publishes with the aim of informing the general public about Europe. They are not official maps and do not serve any legal or administrative purpose. In order to ensure that a map is readable, some editorial standards are needed concerning what names to use. Among the standards followed, one is that the maps made freely available to the public use the short form of names of countries and regions and that only one city per region is mentioned. Islands are named, but not on smaller scale maps. Similarly, the expression ‘outermost regions’ referred to by Article 299 of the EC Treaty has not been used for strictly editorial reasons, as this term is not widely known and understood among the general public of all the Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/352 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/352

---

(2004/C 84 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0283/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Public procurement policy in timer

Could the Commission clarify what timbers are being used in the supply of security and fire doors during refurbishment of the EU Joint Research Centre in Brussels, from which countries and by which timber companies these timbers have been supplied, and what evidence has been received to confirm that all timber used comes from legal and sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The refurbishment of the building occupied by the Joint Research Centre in Brussels which took place in 1995-1996 was carried out by its owner, a private company, according to a lease agreement signed with the Commission in 1994.

In 1997, the Commission revised the ‘immeuble type’ document (1) which dated from 1992, and introduced a requirement that invitations to tender should specify that aspects of sustainable forest management should be taken into account.

However, as the refurbishment of the JRC building took place before 1997, the requirements related to the timber used in the supply of security and fire doors during refurbishment of the Joint Research Centre, as defined in the lease agreement, did not include a specific requirement to provide evidence that the timber came from such sustainable sources (through, for example, forest certification labels).

The renovation contract for the building was awarded by the owner of the building. Consequently, no detailed information on the timber used for the refurbishment is available to the Commission.

As demonstrated by the revision of the ‘immeuble type’ document, the Commission attaches great to the requirement to ensure that timber is provided from environmentally sustainable sources, and now has in place arrangements to ensure that this requirement is respected.

---

(1)  The ‘Immeuble Type’ document is the Commission's standard specification for buildings and sets out the standards for quality of space, use of materials and quality of technical installations.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/353 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/353

---

(2004/C 84 E/0410)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0285/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Landfill on Malta

The Maltese Government intend to establish a new temporary landfill very close to the neolithic temple complex of Mnajdra, which is designated as a Unesco heritage site.

According to a report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth Malta, the site selection process took six days (from 3 to 9 June 2003) without any representation from the Museums Department.

The Maltese Minister remarked that an EIA on the project could be completed in three to four months, establishing a precedent in the field of EIAs in Malta, and giving a new definition to the term ‘multi-seasonal’. The company SLR Consulting accepted to undertake the EIA within this timeframe.

The Hydrological Risk Assessment presented by SLR uses a model to establish the risk of contaminants finding their way out of the sealing lining. The model erroneously assumes a situation where the ‘lining always operates as designed’.

Regarding air quality, there are strong contradictions: SLR state that ‘no data are available to assess the potential for these deposition rates of gas to impact on stone’ but somehow still go on to conclude that ‘the potential for impact on the archaeological features including the World Heritage Sites and Misqa tanks will be negligible’.

Does the European Commission know that the proposal contradicts policy with regard to siting of landfills?

Does the Commission know that the interim landfill is not designed for hazardous waste?

What does the Commission intend doing to stop the Maltese authorities from enacting their plans for this landfill sited near the Unesco World Heritage sites?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

In the accession negotiations, Malta gave its commitment to meet the provisions of the Landfill Directive (1) from 1 May 2004 onwards.

The Maltese Government has informed the Commission that the temporary landfill will comply with the provisions of the Landfill Directive, and that the environment impact assessment would also be made in conformity with the EU legislation. While the decision of where to locate the landfill remains with the national authorities, the Maltese authorities are aware that it must meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive, in particular those concerning the protection of nature and cultural heritage given in Annex I of the Directive. The Maltese Government has also informed the Commission that the temporary landfill will only be used for non-hazardous household waste.

The Commission will be monitoring Malta's progress with the transposition and implementation of the Landfill Directive and the commitments given during negotiations. Once Malta becomes a Member State then the Commission will ensure compliance with this Directive in the same way as it does for all other Member States.

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/354

---

(2004/C 84 E/0411)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/04

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Scope of Directive 97/11/EC

Could the Commission confirm whether or not Item 7a of Directive 97/11/EC (1) covers the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network alongside an existing track?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) (Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 which refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Annex I point 7(a) refers to construction of lines for long-distance railway traffic and of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 metres (m) or more. Annex II point 13 includes any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment.

The Honourable Member asks the Commission to confirm whether or not Annex I point 7(a) covers the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network alongside an existing track. It is to be noted that the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network is not found as a project type in the Annexes. However, the question is whether such a project may be characterised as a change or extension of the existing track, if this track falls under Annex I point 7(a) in the first place. The question of the Honourable Member does not include elements to develop this issue. In any event, if the existing project is not changed as per its own physical characteristics it could hardly fall under Annex II point 13.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/354

---

(2004/C 84 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0291/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Road accidents in European Union countries

On 12 January 2004 the French Prime Minister announced that there were 5 732 road deaths in France in 2003, compared with 7 242 in 2002, 8 437 in 1998, 10 289 in 1990 and 12 428 in 1981 and that in Italy too, partly because of the penalty-points licence, the number of victims fell in 2003. Can the Commission say whether it already has, or intends to obtain road death figures for all European Union countries? On what factors do any anomalies depend? Has there been a reduction in the number of victims everywhere? What public or private measures or initiatives have led to the reduction?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Pursuant to Council Decision of 30 November 1993 (1), the Commission receives information on road accidents and has since July 2002 published detailed statistics on the Europa website (2).

There is a great disparity between the Member States: those with the best results (the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom) record around 60 to 65 deaths per million inhabitants per year, in contrast to 160 to 180 deaths in the countries with the poorest results (Greece and Portugal). The average for the European Union (EU15) is around 105 deaths per million inhabitants per year.

Concerning the factors explaining these differences, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the recent European Action Programme for Road Safety, adopted by the Commission in 2003 (3). Generally speaking, the greatest scope for improvement lies in road-user behaviour, though the road infrastructure could also be greatly improved in several Member States.

Substantial improvements have been recorded in France (a 22 % reduction in the number of deaths in 2003 compared with 2002), Ireland (– 10 %), Italy (– 17 % (4)) and Portugal (– 11 % (5)). The reductions are mainly due to improved road-user behaviour, whether because of increased awareness or better enforcement of the rules (more controls, tougher penalties imposed more effectively). According to provisional, indicative figures, the number of deaths in EU15 in 2003 should be under 35 500 in contrast to 38 500 en 2002 and almost 40 000 in 2001.

---

(1)  Council Decision of 30 November 1993 on the creation of a Community database on road accidents, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/index_en.htm, heading road safety/CARE

(3)  ‘Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility’, Commission communication, COM(2003)311 final.

(4)  January-September 2003/January-September 2002.

(5)  January-August 2003/January-August 2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/355 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/355

---

(2004/C 84 E/0413)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0293/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Threat to the Güe springs from the construction of the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain)

When work began on the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS 17 highway (Asturias, Spain), it was discovered that the plan chosen by the competent authorities might cause irreparable damage to the Güe springs, which provide drinking water for over 11 000 local inhabitants.

In its answer to Written Question P-1825/03 (1) on this subject, the Commission stated that: ‘In any event, it appears that the project has undergone environmental impact assessment. It should be noted, however, that Directive 85/337/EEC (2) does not specify the criteria by which a project is to be selected from among the alternative solutions which have been examined, provided the chosen project has been properly assessed.’

In the light of this fresh information relating to the Güe springs, does the Commission consider the route selected by the Spanish authorities to be the best one from an environmental viewpoint?

Does it not consider, in view of current Community legislation on the protection of groundwater, that an alternative route which does not endanger those springs should be adopted?

Will the Commission ask the competent authorities to provide it with all the information relating to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

According to available information, the project that the Honourable Member brings to the attention of the Commission for the third time consists in the conditioning of a three kilometre section of an existing road. It should be noted that this kind of project is not included in any of the Annexes of Council Directive 8 5/337/EEC (3). The Spanish authorities have, nonetheless, submitted this project to an impact assessment procedure. The ‘Environmental Impact Declaration’ (Declaración de Impacto Ambiental) clearly states that no impact on groundwater is foreseeable in relation with this project.

Furthermore, Directive 85/337/EEC does not establish any criteria for Member States to follow when determining which alternative to choose once the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure has been carried out. For this reason, it is not for the Commission to express its views on the environmental suitability of the chosen route.

In addition, current Community legislation on the protection of groundwater does not contain any provisions that apply to the present case, as this legislation only aims at preventing and, when possible, reducing the pollution of groundwater by substances contained in lists I or II of the Annex to Directive 80/68/EEC (4).

Therefore there is no evidence of an infringement of Community environmental law in this case.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 174.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4)  Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/356

---

(2004/C 84 E/0414)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/04

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Relations between the EU and Libya and human rights in Libya

Libya is doing its utmost to become reintegrated into the international community. In September 2003, the UN sanctions against Libya were lifted. In recent years there has been a rapprochement between the EU and President Gaddafi. The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, says that by means of his talks with the President he wishes to improve these mutual relations. On 30 December 2003, he invited Libya to join the Barcelona process, in response to which Colonel Gaddafi stated that he was prepared to consider full participation in the process. At present, consideration is also being given to concluding a fisheries agreement with Libya.

To what extent does the human right rights situation play a part in the European Union's attitude towards Libya? Are human rights a topic for discussion in relations between the Commission and the government in Tripoli?

What is the Commission's view of the human rights situation in Libya? Does it believe that the situation has improved?

Will the Commission lend its good offices to facilitate an application for permission for a delegation representing independent human rights organisations to visit Libya to review the human rights situation there?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

There are currently no official relations between the EU and Libya, which has been a passive observer in the Barcelona process since 1999.

The EU hopes that Libya can become a fully-fledged member of the Barcelona process, which it could only join on an unconditional basis and by accepting all its acquis.

This would make it possible to enter into dialogue with Libya on all matters of interest, including human rights.

As things stand, in the absence of any official relations with Libya, human rights issues are dealt with in an ad hoc way.

Lastly, Amnesty International has just made a visit to Libya, where it had been denied entry since 1988. The Commission views this as a positive development.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/357 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/357

---

(2004/C 84 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0307/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Genetically modified crops

In the light of the results of the UK farm-scale evaluations with genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, what advice has the Commission given to the competent authorities of Member States which are considering Part C applications to market these crops in Europe under Directive 2001/18/EC?

Does the Commission consider that the applicants will have to provide revised risk assessments according to Article 13(6) of Directive 2001/18/EC, in the light of this new information?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission has not given any specific technical advice to the competent authorities of Member States given that consideration of applications, including risk assessments and final decisions, are conducted on a case-by-case basis under Directive 2001/18/EC (1). Similarly, any new information has also to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This approach is applied at all stages of the authorisation procedure.

The farm-scale evaluations conducted in the United Kingdom included cultivation of genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize, spring-sown oilseed rape and sugar beet. Current applications for the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for cultivation include both herbicide tolerant and other varieties of maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet, fodder beet, potatoes and cotton. In terms of these applications, the Commission has received the assessment reports, from the lead competent authority, for two maize varieties only. The remaining applications are still being appraised by the lead competent authorities and no assessment reports have as yet been forwarded to the Commission.

New information in terms of notifications is, as is correctly pointed out, addressed under Article 13(6) of Directive 2001/18/EC, and where a notifier considers that new information has come to light in terms of risks of the GMO in question to human health or the environment, then there is a requirement to inform the lead competent authority and revise the information and conditions specified in the notification. The lead competent authority may also request further information concerning new information prior to finalising its assessment report.

If a positive assessment report is submitted to the Commission from the lead Member State, then all other Member States and their scientific committees appraise its content with the possibility of raising objections. This would include assessment of any new information, and objections could also be raised if this information was seen as relevant and not included in the initial appraisal. The European Food Safety Authority would also be consulted for opinion where objections remained, including in the context of new information.

In addition: ‘there is no evidence that adverse effects on biodiversity have arisen from the cultivation of a crop which has been modified through modern biotechnology’, as stated in the Form Scale Evaluation (FSE) report.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/358

---

(2004/C 84 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0308/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   The French language at the Commission

If my information is correct, the Commission intends to spend more than EUR 20 million on French courses for its employees. On what basis does the Commission train its staff specifically to improve their command of French, and does it intend to promote the position of French at the expense of other languages within the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The Honourable Member's information is not correct, and neither are the similar figures that have recently appeared in some newspapers, together with misleading reports about French as a working language of the Commission.

The Commission has not taken any decision which gives or will give the teaching of French a privileged place by comparison with that of the other official languages.

Courses for each language for each year are planned on the basis of the previous year's take up. Apart from demand from staff seeking to improve language skills the only other factor taken into account is the budget limit set for language training. For 2003 this was EUR 5 000 000. French courses accounted for 23 % of the total in 2003, English for 20 %, Spanish for 10 %, German for 10 % and the remaining 37 % was used for courses in 28 other languages.

For some languages demand does not noticeably vary. For others, principally English, French and the languages of the acceding countries, there has been an average increase in demand of about 10 % a year since 2001. This trend will probably strengthen from 2004 following enlargement and entry into force of the new Staff Regulations which give increased importance to multilingualism, particularly by requiring officials to attain the ability to work in a third Community language before a first promotion can be secured.

It should be noted that the priority given to a staff member's language training provided or financed by the Commission depends, and will continue to depend, on the requirements of the job that he or she does (1).

Clearly, it is not possible to estimate precisely which languages will be most in demand in the immediate future. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to be committed to providing its staff with accessible opportunities for learning or developing their capabilities in all the official languages.

---

(1)  Commission Decision on staff training C(2002) 1577 of 7 May 2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/359 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/359

---

(2004/C 84 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Discontinuation of the activities of the rail freight company Ikea Rail within two years of its foundation and the status of the EU subsidy of EUR 500 000 awarded to this experiment

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the railway company Ikea Rail, which began operating a freight service between Älmhult and Duisburg on 27 June 2002 and is linked to the home furnishing store ikea, which trades in a number of European countries, discontinued its activities on 15 January 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the railway company Ikea Rail, which began operating a freight service between Älmhult and Duisburg on 27 June 2002 and is linked to the home furnishing store ikea, which trades in a number of European countries, discontinued its activities on 15 January 2004?

| 2. | Did the Commission award a subsidy of EUR 500 000 to Ikea Rail with the intention that this company should serve as a model for how open access to a liberalised pan-European rail freight network could be put into practice? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Did the Commission award a subsidy of EUR 500 000 to Ikea Rail with the intention that this company should serve as a model for how open access to a liberalised pan-European rail freight network could be put into practice?

| 3. | Under what conditions was this EUR 500 000 awarded? Can the recipient company keep this sum now that its activities have ceased? If so, why? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under what conditions was this EUR 500 000 awarded? Can the recipient company keep this sum now that its activities have ceased? If so, why?

| 4. | Are there other companies that have received such forms of encouragement or to whom payment of this kind has already been made? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are there other companies that have received such forms of encouragement or to whom payment of this kind has already been made?

| 5. | Does the Commission intend again in the future to subsidise firms hoping to take advantage of the liberalisation of cross-border rail freight transport? How is the Commission to prevent itself from again subsidising unsuccessful experiments and thereby serving only to cover the losses incurred by risky projects? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission intend again in the future to subsidise firms hoping to take advantage of the liberalisation of cross-border rail freight transport? How is the Commission to prevent itself from again subsidising unsuccessful experiments and thereby serving only to cover the losses incurred by risky projects?

Sources: Op de Rails, No 2004-1, January 2004; Transport & Environment Bulletin, No 124, December 2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The subvention to IKEA Rail AB has been granted by the Commission under a funding programme for combined transport, the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT), based on Council Regulation (EC) No 2196/98 of 1 October 1998 concerning the granting of Community financial assistance for actions of an innovative nature to promote combined transport (1). Besides IKEA, many companies from all Member States have benefited from PACT funding. The PACT programme came to an end in 2001, and is now replaced by the Marco Polo Programme under Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (2).

IKEA Rail got the subvention to help it start this service, given the high risks of starting up a new intermodal service with its own traction and own responsibilities in today's European rail market. The problems and costs associated with the running of the service, especially the costs caused by the lack of interoperability between the different national rail systems, were much higher than anticipated. IKEA Rail therefore stopped operating the service, and the Commission was duly informed. The Commission contributed to the costs of the IKEA project in line with contractual obligations resulting from Regulation (EC) No 2196/98 and paid a total subsidy amounting to EUR 235 925,37.

The Commission is not of the opinion that the IKEA Rail experience has been ‘unhappy’. The IKEA Rail shuttle between Sweden and the Ruhr area in Germany was taken over by another private railway undertaking, ‘RAG Bahn und Hafen’, which operate the service now in collaboration with Intercontainer-Interfrigo. Thus, the IKEA Rail experience partly funded with Community money proved to be valuable as a significant volume of goods has been taken off the road and put on the railways.

Additionally, the IKEA project was essential to identify the problems of market entry and point to concrete solutions and actions to overcome them. The Commission will therefore, in the Marco Polo Programme, continue this kind of risk funding to companies willing to pioneer new solutions. Building on PACT experience, all projects funded through the Marco Polo Programme will be subject to rigorous evaluation concerning their commercial and financial soundness.

---

(1)  OJ L 277, 14.10.1998.

(2)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/360 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/360

---

(2004/C 84 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0324/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   New Belgian levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France

According to an article published in the Financieel Dagblad of 20 January 2004, Belgium is imposing a new levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this report, and is the substance of the Financieel Dagblad article correct? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this report, and is the substance of the Financieel Dagblad article correct?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that Belgium is permitted to impose a new levy for the use of the Belgian high-voltage grid by Netherlands and Germany? If so, on the basis of what article? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that Belgium is permitted to impose a new levy for the use of the Belgian high-voltage grid by Netherlands and Germany? If so, on the basis of what article?

| 3. | If not, what action does the Commission intend to take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Having looked into this matter, it would seem that the Belgian Federal Government does intend to impose specific charges on cross-border transits of electricity.

At this point in time, it is therefore merely an intention.

If this were to materialise, and the system operator was obliged to levy this type of charge, it goes without saying that the Commission would initiate the usual action to verify the compatibility of such a measure with the internal market and the inter-TSO (Transmission System Operator) compensation mechanism recently introduced which makes it possible for the first time to eliminate in the EU any charge on individual transactions and, as from 1 July 2004, with Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (1).

Pursuant to Article 4(5) of that regulation, ‘there shall be no specific network charge on individual transactions for declared transits of electricity’.

The Commission will keep an eye on this matter and will do everything in its power to prevent the establishment of national mechanisms which might adversely affect intra-Community trade.

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/361 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/361

---

(2004/C 84 E/0419)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/04

by Willi Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Transposition of Directive 2002/25/EC

Directive 2002/25/EC (1) of 5 March 2002 amending Council Directive 98/18/EC (2) on safety rules and standards for passenger ships states that its provisions are to be applied from 1 January 2003, unless otherwise specified in the Annex.

| 1. | Which Member States have correctly transposed this directive into national law so far? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Which Member States have correctly transposed this directive into national law so far?

| 2. | Are the Member States having any difficulties in transposing it? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the Member States having any difficulties in transposing it?

| 3. | If so, what kind of difficulties and what will the Commission do to help solve them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what kind of difficulties and what will the Commission do to help solve them?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Commission Directive 2002/25/EC of 5 March 2002 amended the technical provisions (Annex 1) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, in order to take into account the developments at international level (revision of the SOLAS Convention (3)).

The deadline for the transposition of this Directive was 1 January 2003 and today all Member States have transposed it into their national law.

Regarding earlier problems faced by Member States in the transposition of the Directive, the Commission can report the following:

| — | after the adoption of Directive 2002/25/EC, a number of Member States requested further clarity with regard to the provisions of a particular section of Annex 1 to the Directive (Chapter III, Section 5-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

after the adoption of Directive 2002/25/EC, a number of Member States requested further clarity with regard to the provisions of a particular section of Annex 1 to the Directive (Chapter III, Section 5-1);

| — | this section, referring to the life saving appliance on board roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) ships, had to be improved in order to make a clear distinction of standards applicable to ro-ro ships built before 1 January 2003 and those built after 1 January 2003, in line with the relevant international provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

this section, referring to the life saving appliance on board roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) ships, had to be improved in order to make a clear distinction of standards applicable to ro-ro ships built before 1 January 2003 and those built after 1 January 2003, in line with the relevant international provisions;

| — | this issue was addressed in the context of Comitology [Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002, establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (4)] and lead to the adoption of Commission Directive 2003/75/EC of 29 July 2003 amending Annex I to Council Directive 98/18/EC (5); |
| --- | --- |

—

this issue was addressed in the context of Comitology [Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002, establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (4)] and lead to the adoption of Commission Directive 2003/75/EC of 29 July 2003 amending Annex I to Council Directive 98/18/EC (5);

| — | the Commission is not aware of any other problems relating to the implementation of this Directive by Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission is not aware of any other problems relating to the implementation of this Directive by Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 98, 15.4.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1.

(3)  International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

(4)  OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.

(5)  OJ L 190, 30.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/362 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/362

---

(2004/C 84 E/0420)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/04

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) and Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Endometriosis

Is the Commission aware of the fact that data from the world's largest research registry on endometriosis shows that women with endometriosis and their families have a heightened risk of breast cancer, melanoma, and ovarian cancer? There is also a greater risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. These findings confirm other studies, including a study of over 20 000 endometriosis cases in the Swedish cancer registry, which also found an increased risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in women with endometriosis.

In the context of the EU's Women and Health policies and the resolution of the European Parliament in 1999 (1) on the state of women's health, what policies, programmes and projects are envisaged by the Commission to pay due attention to endometriosis, to coordinate research on possible causes and cures, and to increase awareness amongst women of this disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the links between endometriosis and an increased risk of cancer.

Within the current Sixth Framework Programme (6FP) the thematic priority: ‘Genomics and Biotechnology for Health’ is aimed at exploiting the opportunities offered by genomic discoveries and translating them into applications that enhance human health.

Cancer research, by developing patient-oriented strategies, from prevention to more effective and earlier diagnosis and better treatment strategies, is one of the main priorities within this Programme.

To this aim, the programme has chosen not to focus on specific cancer sites or diseases, but to address, in a horizontal and multidisciplinary manner, subjects considered of relevance in the fight against the different forms of the disease.

A further call for proposals in the area of cancer research will be issued in June 2004. Amongst the topics to be addressed is the prevention of cancer in high risk populations, which could allow, amongst other things, to further assess the links between increased risk of cancer and endometriosis. Detailed information on the subjects and content of the call for proposals will be available in the Cordis website (2) at the launching of the call.

In keeping with the resolution of the Parliament in 1999 on the state of women's health, it should be noted that significant efforts have been made in the 6FP to ensure gender issues in public health and research are taken into account when defining the framework programmes and evaluating projects for funding.

The Community action programme for public health (2003-2008) (3) allows in principle for projects in awareness raising. It does not address any specific disease nor does it exclude any proposal from a specific disease background. In 2003, no endometriosis related project proposals were received. A call for proposals was launched at the end of February, with a deadline for applications on 26 April 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 68.

(2)  http://www.cordis.lu

(3)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/363

---

(2004/C 84 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Mislabelling of arsenic acid as pentoxide by the Netherlands as a result of mistakes in ‘unambiguous’ new nomenclature for hazardous chemicals

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Ethiopian ship Andinet, which sank in the North Sea in late 2003 twenty miles off the coast of the Dutch island Texel, was loaded with vats of the carcinogenic and highly toxic chemical arsenic acid, a substance which damages the skin and lungs if touched or inhaled, and is used as an ingredient of the wood preservative CCA? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Ethiopian ship Andinet, which sank in the North Sea in late 2003 twenty miles off the coast of the Dutch island Texel, was loaded with vats of the carcinogenic and highly toxic chemical arsenic acid, a substance which damages the skin and lungs if touched or inhaled, and is used as an ingredient of the wood preservative CCA?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that since 1992 the Government of the Netherlands has listed the chemical compound ‘arsenic acid’ referred to in paragraph 1 as ‘arsenic pentoxide’, that this name change was defended in 1995 by the then Minister of the Environment vis-à-vis the Dutch Parliament, and that the choice of the name was justified by the desire to give substances clearer names at European level? When did the Commission become aware of this new, misleading name in Dutch? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that since 1992 the Government of the Netherlands has listed the chemical compound ‘arsenic acid’ referred to in paragraph 1 as ‘arsenic pentoxide’, that this name change was defended in 1995 by the then Minister of the Environment vis-à-vis the Dutch Parliament, and that the choice of the name was justified by the desire to give substances clearer names at European level? When did the Commission become aware of this new, misleading name in Dutch?

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that dealing with arsenic acid pollution and arsenic pentoxide pollution calls for quite different approaches and security measures, and that misleading labelling poses an increased danger to human life when transferring loads and in emergency and cleaning operations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that dealing with arsenic acid pollution and arsenic pentoxide pollution calls for quite different approaches and security measures, and that misleading labelling poses an increased danger to human life when transferring loads and in emergency and cleaning operations?

| 4. | Does the Commission agree with the view stated on Dutch and Flemish television by the Flemish Member of Parliament Johan Malcorps (of the Flemish Green party Agalev) that, given the misleading labelling, the ship should never have been allowed to leave the port of Antwerp with this cargo on board? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission agree with the view stated on Dutch and Flemish television by the Flemish Member of Parliament Johan Malcorps (of the Flemish Green party Agalev) that, given the misleading labelling, the ship should never have been allowed to leave the port of Antwerp with this cargo on board?

| 5. | How will the Commission prevent differing and misleading names for hazardous chemicals from continuing to be used by the individual Member States? When will a clear nomenclature that cannot give rise to any misunderstandings be introduced? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How will the Commission prevent differing and misleading names for hazardous chemicals from continuing to be used by the individual Member States? When will a clear nomenclature that cannot give rise to any misunderstandings be introduced?

Sources: TV Nederland 2, Twee vandaag' 23.1.2004 + TV Vlaanderen 1, ‘VRT Journaal’, 24.1.2004.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is indeed aware of the accident in question. The drums transported by the ‘Andinet’ definitely contained a mixture of arsenic pentoxide, chromium trioxide and copper oxide (which are also the ingredients of CCA), according to the information provided by the producer and the shipping agent, in particular through the Material Safety Data Sheet. Arsenic acid was not transported. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is indeed aware of the accident in question. The drums transported by the ‘Andinet’ definitely contained a mixture of arsenic pentoxide, chromium trioxide and copper oxide (which are also the ingredients of CCA), according to the information provided by the producer and the shipping agent, in particular through the Material Safety Data Sheet. Arsenic acid was not transported.

| 2. | The Commission is not aware of any such change of name. According to chemical experts, arsenic pentoxide may easily form arsenic acid. This may be the explanation for the change of name. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is not aware of any such change of name. According to chemical experts, arsenic pentoxide may easily form arsenic acid. This may be the explanation for the change of name.

| 3. | As regards maritime transport of chemicals, there are particular Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances in Appendix I of Annex II to the Marpol 73/78 Convention, which are relevant irrespective of the labelling applied by the Member States. In addition, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which is the standard guide to all aspects of handling dangerous goods and marine pollutants in sea transport, entered into force on 1 January 2004. It is mandatory for Governments to adopt this Code or to use it as the basis for national regulations when they put the requirements of SOLAS 1974 and Marpol 73/78 Conventions into effect. The IMDG Code lays down basic principles; detailed recommendations for individual substances, materials and articles; and a number of recommendations for good operational practice including advice on terminology, packing, labelling stowage, segregation and handling, and emergency response action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As regards maritime transport of chemicals, there are particular Guidelines for the categorization of noxious liquid substances in Appendix I of Annex II to the Marpol 73/78 Convention, which are relevant irrespective of the labelling applied by the Member States. In addition, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which is the standard guide to all aspects of handling dangerous goods and marine pollutants in sea transport, entered into force on 1 January 2004. It is mandatory for Governments to adopt this Code or to use it as the basis for national regulations when they put the requirements of SOLAS 1974 and Marpol 73/78 Conventions into effect. The IMDG Code lays down basic principles; detailed recommendations for individual substances, materials and articles; and a number of recommendations for good operational practice including advice on terminology, packing, labelling stowage, segregation and handling, and emergency response action.

| 4. | Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community vessel traffic and information system (1) includes provisions concerning notification of ships' movements and their cargoes. In particular, it requires operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify the competent port authority and to provide certain pieces of information, including the correct technical names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the United Nations (UN) numbers or International Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes.
  The Commission cannot have a formal position on a third party's alleged comments on TV or in the press. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the authorisation to leave a port is an exclusive competence of the authorities of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community vessel traffic and information system (1) includes provisions concerning notification of ships' movements and their cargoes. In particular, it requires operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify the competent port authority and to provide certain pieces of information, including the correct technical names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the United Nations (UN) numbers or International Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes.

The Commission cannot have a formal position on a third party's alleged comments on TV or in the press. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the authorisation to leave a port is an exclusive competence of the authorities of the Member States.

| 5. | The nomenclature for chemicals has been internationally agreed for decades under the rules of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). In addition, CAS numbers (Chemical Abstracts Services) and EC numbers provide assistance in identifying chemicals. The EU uses such nomenclature and numbering systems for dangerous chemicals, including for arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The nomenclature for chemicals has been internationally agreed for decades under the rules of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). In addition, CAS numbers (Chemical Abstracts Services) and EC numbers provide assistance in identifying chemicals. The EU uses such nomenclature and numbering systems for dangerous chemicals, including for arsenic acid and arsenic pentoxide.

---

(1)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/364 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/364

---

(2004/C 84 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0336/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Embryo research financed from the EU budget

| 1. | Why did the Commission, in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did the Commission, in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial agreement?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree?

| 3. | Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on 11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a Commissioner who thinks differently? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on 11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a Commissioner who thinks differently?

| 4. | In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to ethical questions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to ethical questions?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

| 1. | The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory nature which took place in the margins of the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory nature which took place in the margins of the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure.

| 2. | The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules.

| 3. | The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the Council's table. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the Council's table.

| 4. | This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union's competence to determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003, expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem cells from human embryos (1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union's competence to determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003, expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem cells from human embryos (1).

---

(1)  http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CAL-DOC&HLE=20031119&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LAST-CHAP=12&SDOCTA=l0&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/365 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/365

---

(2004/C 84 E/0423)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0339/04

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Wind turbines

Although wind power has been called into question in the countries in which it originated (including Germany and Denmark), numerous wind power projects are being developed in France.

Recent scientific reports would seem to indicate that in Germany almost 500 000 birds are killed by wind turbines every year.

Does the Commission have in its possession serious scientific studies on the environmental impact of these wind turbines, including their impact on migratory birds?

Furthermore, in the light of the information available to the Commission, is the installation of these wind turbines compatible with the conservation of migratory bird populations, not least as they are installed on migration paths and in wintering areas and sensitive breeding grounds?

Under these circumstances, is the operator obliged to comply with a precise set of specifications endorsed by the European Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is aware that there are concerns about the potential conflicts between wind farm developments and nature conservation objectives in certain areas, especially in relation to wild birds. Different studies have identified potential hazards such as disturbance, collision mortality and direct loss of habitat arising from such developments (1).

The compatibility of wind farm developments with the requirement of bird protection under EU nature legislation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. The existing knowledge does suggest that the concerns raised by the Honourable Member may be significant especially where sites proposed are on recognised bird migration routes.

Any proposed wind farm project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subject to an environmental impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). Such an impact assessment should identify, describe and assess the direct effects of a project on, inter alia, flora and fauna.

Where the development may affect a Natura 2000 area (3) the project must be subject to an assessment in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC. This provides substantive and procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites unless they can be justified, in the absence of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest. Where the site hosts priority species or habitat types listed under Directive 92/43/EEC, the only considerations that may be raised are those of human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or further to an opinion of the Commission to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

Finalising the establishment of the network of Special Protection Areas in France and other Member States will provide a strong legal basis to ensure that potentially damaging developments in areas of high conservation importance for wild birds are brought under this protection regime.

---

(1)  See for example the review prepared by BirdLife International on behalf of the Berne Convention at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_protection/ sc22_inf30erev.pdf

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 and OJ L 73, 14.3.1997 respectively.

(3)  Special Protection Areas under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 and Special Areas of Conservation under Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/366 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/366

---

(2004/C 84 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   ‘Conseillers hors classe’

Can the Commission state how many former officials are working for DG ADMIN as so-called ‘conseillers hors classe’?

How many of these officials temporarily suspended from work are to be found in the Commission's other Directorate-Generals?

Can the Commission confirm, in this context, how many officials are currently suspended as a result of ongoing disciplinary procedures, whilst continuing to be on the payroll?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

As an appointing authority the Commission may, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and associated operational rules, decide to reassign an official from a management position to a non-management function at any time, if it considers this to be in the interest of the service. In this context, the non-managerial function for Directors General and Deputy Directors General is ‘hors classe adviser’. An assignment to these functions can be for various periods of time and the tasks and responsibilities of these officials are defined by the relevant appointing authority.

As the Commission has previously made clear, a ‘Conseiller hors classe’ is not a ‘former’ official and such a designation certainly does not carry the meaning that the official is ‘suspended from work’.

In the case of suspension, which a provisional measure of a disciplinary nature and not an administrative measure, the official concerned ceases to exercise any function in the institution for the duration of the suspension. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority may decide to suspend an official only when allegations of serious misconduct are brought against that person

Currently, two ‘hors classe advisers’ are working for Directorate General (DG) Personnel and Administration and three others are employed in DG Development, DG Regional Policy, and in the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements respectively.

Four Commission officials (who are not ‘hors classe advisers’) are currently suspended from their functions in the context of ongoing disciplinary procedures being conducted because of allegations of serious misconduct.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/367 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/367

---

(2004/C 84 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Trans-European Transport Networks

Does the Commission agree that the development of the Trans-European Transport Networks should take into account existing wildlife sites such as Natura 2000 sites?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a full strategic environmental assessment to ensure that negative impacts on the environment are minimised?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The development of the Trans-European Transport (TEN-T) network takes into account existing Wildlife and the Natura 2000 sites as follows:

| — | Decision No 1692/96 on the Community guidelines (1) currently being revised by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, makes clear that any TEN-T project must fully comply with EU environmental legislation. According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), Member States must carry out an environmental assessment. At the level of plans and programmes, they have to implement the Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3) by July 2004. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (4) also requires Member States to assess plans (and projects) in relation to their impact on Natura 2000 sites; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision No 1692/96 on the Community guidelines (1) currently being revised by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, makes clear that any TEN-T project must fully comply with EU environmental legislation. According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), Member States must carry out an environmental assessment. At the level of plans and programmes, they have to implement the Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3) by July 2004. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (4) also requires Member States to assess plans (and projects) in relation to their impact on Natura 2000 sites;

| — | the Commission has carried out an Extended Impact Assessment of its proposal to revise the TEN-T Guidelines on 1 October 2003 (5) including the evaluation of environmental, economic and social impacts by taking interrelations of projects, corridors and modes into consideration as well as traffic and economy forecast for alternatives. The study included the analysis of the proximity of the priority projects with Natura 2000 sites; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission has carried out an Extended Impact Assessment of its proposal to revise the TEN-T Guidelines on 1 October 2003 (5) including the evaluation of environmental, economic and social impacts by taking interrelations of projects, corridors and modes into consideration as well as traffic and economy forecast for alternatives. The study included the analysis of the proximity of the priority projects with Natura 2000 sites;

| — | the Commission makes sure that before any Community funding is granted, evidence of the application of Community environmental legislation is shown. For this purpose, in the allocation of the TEN-budget since 2001, the Commission requests a specific declaration by the authority in the Member State responsible for monitoring of Natura 2000 sites, confirming that the procedure specified in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive has been followed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission makes sure that before any Community funding is granted, evidence of the application of Community environmental legislation is shown. For this purpose, in the allocation of the TEN-budget since 2001, the Commission requests a specific declaration by the authority in the Member State responsible for monitoring of Natura 2000 sites, confirming that the procedure specified in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive has been followed.

---

(1)  Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(5)  Commission staff working paper SEC(2003) 1060.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/368 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/368

---

(2004/C 84 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0346/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Differential pricing

Is it true that the ECJ, in a case brought by the Commission against the Italian Government, ruled that it is unlawful to use differential pricing to subsidise access of local resident pensioners to public facilities? Can you please give a detailed account of this case?

Does this ruling mean that national and regional governments are prohibited from offering free public services, such as transport, to resident pensioners, unless these services are provided to all EU pensioners?

Could you clarify how this ruling affects the autonomy of Member States in deciding how they spend their citizens' nationally and regionally paid taxes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

As indicated in its answer to Written Question 4044/03 from Ms. Theresa Villiers (1), the Commission reiterates that in its judgement of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01 concerning admission to museums in Italy, the Court of Justice explicitly ruled that, like those based on nationality, preferential rates granted on the basis of the place of residence — even local — of visitors to cultural sites were discriminatory and hence incompatible with the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of free movement of services.

The Case concerned discriminatory, advantageous rates for admission to museums and other monuments and public sites granted only to Italian nationals or persons resident within the territory of the authorities running the cultural sites in question who were aged over 60 or 65 years, excluding from such benefits tourists who were nationals of other Member States and non-residents who fulfilled the same objective age requirements.

According to established case law, a distinction drawn on the basis of residence is liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, since the majority of non-residents are foreigners. In particular, it is immaterial whether the contested measure may affect nationals of the State in question resident in other parts of the national territory as well as nationals of other Member States.

A distinction based on local residence could, in any case, only be justified by purely economic reasons and could be acceptable only if it respected the principles of necessity and proportionality. In response to the question asked by the Honourable Member, for example, such a distinction could only be justified if there was a direct link between some form of taxation within the territory of the local authority on the one hand and the application of preferential rates for admission to a service provided by such an authority (with a view to ensuring fiscal consistency) on the other.

In accordance with the established case law of the Court of Justice, if measures of indirect taxation fall under the competence and autonomy of Member States, such measures must nevertheless, on the basis of the particular features of each situation, be applied in any event in accordance with the principles of Community law, in order to avoid discrimination between nationals of the various Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/369 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/369

---

(2004/C 84 E/0427)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0349/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Serious irregularities involving the EU as regards the establishment of the private University of Formello (Rome)

The ‘Free University of Formello’ was set up in 2003. It is a private institution and started teaching students on 11 November 2003. On that date the municipality of Formello decided to become a shareholder in the university but, because of some dubious statements contained in the document submitted at the Council meeting to justify this decision, a number of councillors carried out detailed checks. The document in question supposedly dealt with a request for recognition of the university, sent to the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, by the European Commission. It said that funding had been granted for the project by the DG for Education and Culture under the Leonardo programme and bore the signature of the chairman of the National Committee for the assessment of the university system (a body belonging to the Ministry of Education) and a file number — DOC 27/2003. When the councillors checked with the chairman, they concluded that the document was false, for the following reasons: the chairman said that the Committee had never written the document, the chairman's signature had been forged and the Committee had not met on the dates mentioned in the document.

The councillors have already taken steps to launch all the penal and administrative procedures required to throw light on the subject. The Ministry of Education has lodged a complaint with the misleading advertising watchdog regarding the use of the name ‘Free university’, which is not allowed under current legislation because it is not authorised by the Ministry.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it is already aware of the facts outlined above, the creation of the university and the statements regarding the involvement of the DG for Education and Culture; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it is already aware of the facts outlined above, the creation of the university and the statements regarding the involvement of the DG for Education and Culture;

| 2. | whether it is true that funding was provided under the Leonardo Programme — and if so how much — for establishing the ‘free University of Formello’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it is true that funding was provided under the Leonardo Programme — and if so how much — for establishing the ‘free University of Formello’;

| 3. | whether it is true that the Commission requested recognition of the university from the Italian Ministry of Education; |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it is true that the Commission requested recognition of the university from the Italian Ministry of Education;

| 4. | whether, if all this is untrue, the Commission has the power and the intention to intervene directly; |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether, if all this is untrue, the Commission has the power and the intention to intervene directly;

| 5. | whether it may also do so with regard to the infringement of European legislation on misleading advertising? |
| --- | --- |

5.

whether it may also do so with regard to the infringement of European legislation on misleading advertising?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

In response to the Honourable Member's questions, and to address irregularities in the creation of the private University of Formello, the Commission would like to point out that:

| 1. | The Commission recently received summary information according to which the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ claims to have been involved in a project financed by the Leonardo da Vinci Programme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission recently received summary information according to which the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ claims to have been involved in a project financed by the Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

| 2. | No subsidy had been granted to the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ under the Leonardo da Vinci Programme. |
| --- | --- |

2.

No subsidy had been granted to the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ under the Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

| 3. | No request for ‘recognition’ of the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ was sent to the Italian Ministry of Education by the Commission. Moreover, the Commission is not empowered to make such a request. |
| --- | --- |

3.

No request for ‘recognition’ of the ‘Libera Universita di Formello’ was sent to the Italian Ministry of Education by the Commission. Moreover, the Commission is not empowered to make such a request.

| 4. | The Commission is currently cooperating with the Italian authorities in order to establish the facts. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is currently cooperating with the Italian authorities in order to establish the facts.

| 5. | On the basis of the information currently available, the Commission has no reason to conclude that there has been an infringement of Community legislation on advertising. |
| --- | --- |

5.

On the basis of the information currently available, the Commission has no reason to conclude that there has been an infringement of Community legislation on advertising.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/370 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/370

---

(2004/C 84 E/0428)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0353/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Possibility of funding for a virtual health information project

The European Union's task of ensuring the population a high level of protection in the field of public health, to complement measures carried out by the Member States, was recognised and emphasised by the Commission in its Communication (1) on the health strategy of the European Community, which envisages specific measures to address the health guarantee obligations deriving from the provisions of the Treaty and the implementation of Community policies designed to ensure such protection, including an action programme to support the sectors in which individual Member states cannot take effective action.

In the context of the initiatives devised for these purposes, it might be feasible to include a project for a European information desk which people could contact directly, using the instruments offered by modern technologies: for example, a healthcare network on the Internet and/or an interactive thematic satellite channel providing not only information, but also diagnostic, therapeutic, pharmacological and first-aid advice for users who could access the service and receive answers and advice in real time. Far from replacing healthcare in clinics or hospitals, this initiative could substantially speed up the health service, allowing thousands of patients who cannot go to the doctor in person to obtain immediate advice and ensure that they are accurately informed about prevention and treatment in the event of emergencies, as well as infectious diseases such as HIV, oncology, common diseases, new viruses such as SARS or the re-emergence of diseases such as TB, which were thought to have been eradicated. An initiative of this kind would also be useful in providing the population with an information service on topical subjects such as wellness medicine, homeopathy and alternative medicine.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether a project of this kind can be carried out with funding under the action programme referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether a project of this kind can be carried out with funding under the action programme referred to above;

| 2. | whether there are other forms of financial contribution the EU may provide to support a possible initiative of this kind; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are other forms of financial contribution the EU may provide to support a possible initiative of this kind;

| 3. | whether there already is or there will be a budget heading for the health strategy and whether it is to be expanded in future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether there already is or there will be a budget heading for the health strategy and whether it is to be expanded in future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. | The Community public health programme (2) provides support for developing and operating a joint action with the plans drawn up under the eEurope 2002 and 2005 Action plans in order to improve availability to the general public on the Internet of information on health matters, and to consider the possibilities to establish a system for recognisable Community seals of approval for Internet sites.
  Article 152 paragraph 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the Community shall fully respect that the delivery of health services and of medical care is the responsibility of Member states. A project offering diagnostic, therapeutic, pharmacological and first-aid advice to users is considered as falling under national competence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Community public health programme (2) provides support for developing and operating a joint action with the plans drawn up under the eEurope 2002 and 2005 Action plans in order to improve availability to the general public on the Internet of information on health matters, and to consider the possibilities to establish a system for recognisable Community seals of approval for Internet sites.

Article 152 paragraph 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the Community shall fully respect that the delivery of health services and of medical care is the responsibility of Member states. A project offering diagnostic, therapeutic, pharmacological and first-aid advice to users is considered as falling under national competence.

| 2. | The Information Society Technologies priority of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) supports research and development and demonstration projects in the field of information technology and communications in healthcare e.g. professional health care systems, home care services and personal health status monitoring systems. An application for funding of the outlined activity under this programme could be considered. The publication of the next call for proposals in the eHealth area can be expected for late 2004. Further information about the activities on eHealth within the IST-programme and the call for proposals in this context are available on the website of the Commission's Information Society Directorate-general (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Information Society Technologies priority of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) supports research and development and demonstration projects in the field of information technology and communications in healthcare e.g. professional health care systems, home care services and personal health status monitoring systems. An application for funding of the outlined activity under this programme could be considered. The publication of the next call for proposals in the eHealth area can be expected for late 2004. Further information about the activities on eHealth within the IST-programme and the call for proposals in this context are available on the website of the Commission's Information Society Directorate-general (3).

| 3. | The Community Public Health Programme (2003-2008), which was adopted in 2002, plays the central role in providing financial support and technical expertise for the development of the EU health strategy. Its financial envelope for the period 2003-2008 is EUR 312 million. A new Commission Communication on the Community health strategy including a roadmap for action until 2010 is in preparation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Community Public Health Programme (2003-2008), which was adopted in 2002, plays the central role in providing financial support and technical expertise for the development of the EU health strategy. Its financial envelope for the period 2003-2008 is EUR 312 million. A new Commission Communication on the Community health strategy including a roadmap for action until 2010 is in preparation.

---

(1)  COM(2000)285.

(2)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), published in: OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/ehealth/index_en.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/371 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/371

---

(2004/C 84 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0354/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Funding for the creation of a multi-purpose auditorium

The municipality of Fiuggi in the province of Frosinone is creating a modern multi-purpose auditorium with more than 2 000 seats where theatrical, musical and televised events can be held, as well as conferences and exhibitions.

The project involves the extension and conversion of the existing Teatro delle Fonti, located in the Fonte Anticolana park, and the environmental redevelopment and restoration of the site.

All year round the centre would constitute substantial added value for all the activities connected with the Fiuggi spa centre.

All this will create new jobs and enhance the value of this region of central Italy further, not least because of the above-mentioned park.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| 1. | what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative;

| 2. | whether there are similar initiatives within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are similar initiatives within the EU;

| 3. | whether the Commission itself may sponsor the initiative? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether the Commission itself may sponsor the initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Reference to the Single Programming Document indicating the scope of European Regional Development Fund assistance for Lazio Region in the period 2000-2006 shows that operations of the type referred to by the Honourable Member (provision of cultural service structures of touristic interest) can be aided under Priority III (Development of local systems), specifically Measure III.2 on development of zones of touristic, cultural and environmental interest.

It is the Regional Administration that as managing authority for the Lazio programme is responsible for selecting and overseeing projects and that the Honourable Member will have to approach in connection with eligibility of this particular project for assistance.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/372 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/372

---

(2004/C 84 E/0430)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0355/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Funding for young artists

The cultural association ‘Prometeo’ of Alatri in the province of Frosinone has long been involved in promoting and publicising an international art and literature prize, the aims of which include fostering the knowledge of various cultures and traditions via paintings and sculptures produced by various artists from different EU Member States.

The prize is awarded for an artistic work on a specific theme which is decided on each year, but it is left up to the artists to choose what technique they consider most appropriate.

The aim of the whole initiative is to promote the trans-national dissemination of culture and the movement of artists and artistic works, which is also one of the objectives of ‘Culture 2000’.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

| 1. | what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative in the context of ‘Cultura 2000’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative in the context of ‘Cultura 2000’;

| 2. | whether there are similar initiatives within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are similar initiatives within the EU;

| 3. | whether this sector is one of the priorities for 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this sector is one of the priorities for 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0938/03 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0938/03 (1).

| 3. | The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that the call for proposals for projects to be undertaken in 2004 closed on 30 October 2003 for annual projects and on 14 November 2003 for multiannual projects. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that the call for proposals for projects to be undertaken in 2004 closed on 30 October 2003 for annual projects and on 14 November 2003 for multiannual projects.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 212.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/372 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/372

---

(2004/C 84 E/0431)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/04

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Giorgio Ruffolo (PSE), Guido Sacconi (PSE) and Walter Veltroni (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

The company Thyssen Krupp (TK) recently presented its technical schedule, which indicates its decision to close the AST's electrical steel department in Terni, Italy, entailing the loss of 900 jobs in the area concerned.

Electrical steel is of decisive importance for the overall equilibrium of the Terni steelworks, in terms of production arrangements and synergies and the implications for employment; furthermore, TK promised to make Terni the European centre of excellence for grain-oriented electrical steel.

The plant is one of the company's European sites with the lowest product unit costs and there has been enormous public investment, including Community funding linked to the Objective 2 contract and the ESF, in developing local systems, infrastructure and vocational training, from which AST/TK has benefited both directly and indirectly.

Does the Commission intend to promote immediate moves to prevent the closure of the electrical steel department of TK's plant in Terni?

Does it intend to adopt a more decisive strategy to tackle industrial restructuring and its social impact, in order to prevent adverse repercussions not only on employment and working conditions, but also on regional planning?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/373

---

(2004/C 84 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0390/04

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the electrical steel department of AST in Terni

The company Thyssen Krupp (TK) has announced its decision to close the electrical steel department of AST in Terni, Italy. The product unit cost of the electrical steel produced there is among the lowest in Europe.

| 1. | In view of this, does the Commission intend to draw up proposals which may help to prevent the closure of the plant in Terni? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of this, does the Commission intend to draw up proposals which may help to prevent the closure of the plant in Terni?

| 2. | Does the Commission intend to support measures aimed at ensuring that workers are given more information about and are more involved in company decisions, so as to prevent drastic industrial restructuring decisions from having adverse repercussions in the future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission intend to support measures aimed at ensuring that workers are given more information about and are more involved in company decisions, so as to prevent drastic industrial restructuring decisions from having adverse repercussions in the future?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/373

---

(2004/C 84 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0395/04

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Measures to prevent the closure of the steelworks in Terni

The steelworks in Terni belongs to the German multinational Thyssen Krupp and is one of the most important in Europe.

The group has indicated that it wants to close the plant, which is the only one in Italy producing electrical steel.

For these reasons, can the Commission make every possible endeavour to safeguard this highly specialised industrial sector, which provides jobs for thousands of workers, one thousand of whom — if we include those in related industries — risk losing their jobs.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0356/04, E-0390/04 and E-0395/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint answer (1) to Written Questions P-0376/04 by Mrs Sbarbati, P-0388/04 by Mrs Angelilli and P-0445/04 by Mr Mastella. In any case, the Commission notes with satisfaction that an agreement appears to have been reached not to close down the installations.

---

(1)  See page 206.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/374 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/374

---

(2004/C 84 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0360/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Failure to include directory services among universal service obligations

In September 2003 the Italian Government issued a legislative decree approving the ‘Electronic Communications Code’, which transposes into national law Directives 2002/19/EC (1) (Access Directive), 2002/20/EC (2) (Authorisation Directive), 2002/21/EC (3) (Framework Directive) and 2002/22/EC (4) (Universal Service Directive).

However, under the terms of the ‘Code’:

| (a) | the directory service (known in Italy as ‘Service 12’, provided by Telecom Italia) is not included among the services supplied as part of the universal service (Article 5 5 of the Code); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the directory service (known in Italy as ‘Service 12’, provided by Telecom Italia) is not included among the services supplied as part of the universal service (Article 5 5 of the Code);

| (b) | the periodic review of the services to be included in the universal service is carried out by the Government, following consultation of the Telecommunications Authority (Article 65 of the Code). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the periodic review of the services to be included in the universal service is carried out by the Government, following consultation of the Telecommunications Authority (Article 65 of the Code).

Considering that:

| — | Articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC) provide for the inclusion of directory inquiry services among universal service obligations (this was reiterated, with reference to the ‘12’ service, by the Italian Communications Authority in its decision 103/03/CONS of April 2003); and Article 3 therefore stipulates that Member States will ensure that such services are made available ‘at the quality specified to all end-users in their territory, independently of geographical location, and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC) provide for the inclusion of directory inquiry services among universal service obligations (this was reiterated, with reference to the ‘12’ service, by the Italian Communications Authority in its decision 103/03/CONS of April 2003); and Article 3 therefore stipulates that Member States will ensure that such services are made available ‘at the quality specified to all end-users in their territory, independently of geographical location, and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price’.

| — | Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC stipulates that the Commission (and not the national governments) will be responsible for carrying out a periodic review of the scope of universal service, in the light of social, economic and technological developments. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC stipulates that the Commission (and not the national governments) will be responsible for carrying out a periodic review of the scope of universal service, in the light of social, economic and technological developments.

| — | The seriousness of the problem referred to in point (a) above is highlighted by the fact that it has caused a steady increase in the cost of the ‘12’ service between November and January, and almost a doubling of costs for residential users. |
| --- | --- |

—

The seriousness of the problem referred to in point (a) above is highlighted by the fact that it has caused a steady increase in the cost of the ‘12’ service between November and January, and almost a doubling of costs for residential users.

Does the Commission not consider, in view of the information given in points (a) and (b) above, that the ‘Electronic Communications Code’ contravenes the Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC)?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Article 6(l)(b) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, hereafter the Universal Service Directive, provides that Member States shall ensure that at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service is available to all end-users, including users of public pay phones. Since this service falls within the scope of universal service, it must be made available at a specified quality and at an affordable price. In the case of Italy, the ‘Codice delle Communicazione Elettroniche’ (Codice) (in Article 55) states that there are several different offers of directory enquiry services that met the above-mentioned criteria. Furthermore, the Codice provides for a six monthly review of the market conditions and empowers the Ministry of Communications to impose, where needed, the relevant obligation on designated undertaking(s).

At present, in Italy, end-users may choose between two or three different operators that provide directory enquiry services. They may use the service provided by Telecom Italia (number 12), the service provided by Seat Pagine Gialle (89.24.24) and that provided by their own telephone provider (412) (in these two last cases they are ‘enhanced’ directory enquiry services with the possibility to access information in addition to the simple telephone number).

Before the entry into force of the Codice, the directory enquiry service was provided by Telecom Italia (number 12) as the universal service provider. Under the current service conditions the price for the interactive voice recorded service remains more or less the same as before (that is EUR 0,50 for information) and is doubled if operator assistance is required.

As regards the second part of the Honourable Member's question, Article 65 of the Codice provides that the Ministry reviews every year the application of the universal service obligations in order to determine to which services they should be applied. Article 3(2) of the Universal Service Directive requires Member States to determine the most efficient and appropriate approach for ensuring the implementation of universal service, whilst respecting the principles of objectivity, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality. It, therefore, appears fully appropriate and even desirable that national authorities should periodically review the conditions that have underpinned their earlier decisions. Also, the Codice explicitly states that the review will be based, among other things, on the position taken by the Commission as part of its periodic review under Article 15 of the Universal Service Directive.

The Commission will continue to monitor the compliance by the Member States, including Italy, with the Universal Service Directive and, in the event of non-compliance, may propose the opening of an infringement proceeding with a view to having the Court of Justice rule on the existence of this infringement. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Court has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a transposition measure. The Commission will, in particular, monitor the situation regarding the periodical review by the Italian authorities of the conditions under which these services are provided, so as to ensure that the principles of objectivity, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality are met.

---

(1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.

(3)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

(4)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/375

---

(2004/C 84 E/0435)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Fluoridation of Irish drinking water

| 1. | Will the Commission confirm that its Environment DG has received representations from the EP's Committee on Petitions on the ‘very serious and persistent problems with Irish public water schemes’ (1) in particular the excess amounts of aluminium in fluoridated supplies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission confirm that its Environment DG has received representations from the EP's Committee on Petitions on the ‘very serious and persistent problems with Irish public water schemes’ (1) in particular the excess amounts of aluminium in fluoridated supplies?

| 2. | Will the Commission reveal what, if any, investigations the Commission has made into this serious situation, not only in the Galway area but into the other 42 Sanitary Authorities in Ireland that also add fluoride, three quarters of whom regularly exceed the legal limit for aluminium, according to the EPA's ‘Quality of Drinking Water, 2001’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission reveal what, if any, investigations the Commission has made into this serious situation, not only in the Galway area but into the other 42 Sanitary Authorities in Ireland that also add fluoride, three quarters of whom regularly exceed the legal limit for aluminium, according to the EPA's ‘Quality of Drinking Water, 2001’

| 3. | Why were these criticisms about Irish drinking water not scrutinised as part of the review and possible revision of the Drinking Water Directive during 2003 before its implementation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Why were these criticisms about Irish drinking water not scrutinised as part of the review and possible revision of the Drinking Water Directive during 2003 before its implementation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Honourable Member appears to be referring to a number of distinct drinking water issues in Ireland. Petitions 333/98, 661/2000, 1497/2002 before the Petitions Committee of the Parliament concern, respectively, microbiological contamination of a public drinking water supply at Carraroe, County Galway, microbiological contamination of and high aluminium levels in the Troyswood public water supply in Kilkenny and the appearance of algal blooms in Lough Guitane, a drinking water source in County Kerry. The most serious, persistent problem with Irish public water supplies consists of microbiological contamination. This has affected a significant number of public water supplies, including those at Carraroe and Troyswood, although the gravest problems are found in private Irish supplies. It is the subject of a decision of the Court of Justice against Ireland (2). The Commission has been in communication with the Irish authorities with a view to ensuring that problems of microbiological contamination are brought to an end and that the Court judgement is addressed as soon as possible. The issue of fluoridation did not figure in these petitions, and it has not been raised with the Irish authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Honourable Member appears to be referring to a number of distinct drinking water issues in Ireland. Petitions 333/98, 661/2000, 1497/2002 before the Petitions Committee of the Parliament concern, respectively, microbiological contamination of a public drinking water supply at Carraroe, County Galway, microbiological contamination of and high aluminium levels in the Troyswood public water supply in Kilkenny and the appearance of algal blooms in Lough Guitane, a drinking water source in County Kerry. The most serious, persistent problem with Irish public water supplies consists of microbiological contamination. This has affected a significant number of public water supplies, including those at Carraroe and Troyswood, although the gravest problems are found in private Irish supplies. It is the subject of a decision of the Court of Justice against Ireland (2). The Commission has been in communication with the Irish authorities with a view to ensuring that problems of microbiological contamination are brought to an end and that the Court judgement is addressed as soon as possible. The issue of fluoridation did not figure in these petitions, and it has not been raised with the Irish authorities.

| 3. | The new Drinking Water Directive (3) sets quality standards in particular for microbiological parameters, aluminium and fluorides, based on available scientific evidence, advice from the Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee Toxicology of Chemical compounds (CSTE) and in line with the values recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) (4). The values set are also in line with the most recent documents by WHO dating from 2003.
  The Commission is proactively following developments in the drinking water sector, and organised, in October 2003, a seminar on drinking water. This seminar brought together a range of experts from across the European Union including new Member States as well as the WHO, from universities, administrations and agencies, water suppliers and industry as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and addressed, inter alia, the issues of microbiological and chemical parameters (including fluoride). For fluoride values it has been recognized that the current value of 1,5 milligrammes per litre (mg/l) is sufficiently protective, and that a lower value of 1,0 mg/l could be recommended for artificially fluoridated drinking water. At the same time there has been general agreement that there was no urgent need to change the 1998 Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The new Drinking Water Directive (3) sets quality standards in particular for microbiological parameters, aluminium and fluorides, based on available scientific evidence, advice from the Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee Toxicology of Chemical compounds (CSTE) and in line with the values recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) (4). The values set are also in line with the most recent documents by WHO dating from 2003.

The Commission is proactively following developments in the drinking water sector, and organised, in October 2003, a seminar on drinking water. This seminar brought together a range of experts from across the European Union including new Member States as well as the WHO, from universities, administrations and agencies, water suppliers and industry as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and addressed, inter alia, the issues of microbiological and chemical parameters (including fluoride). For fluoride values it has been recognized that the current value of 1,5 milligrammes per litre (mg/l) is sufficiently protective, and that a lower value of 1,0 mg/l could be recommended for artificially fluoridated drinking water. At the same time there has been general agreement that there was no urgent need to change the 1998 Directive.

---

(1)  See PE 329 242.

(2)  Commission v Ireland, Case C-316/00, judgement of 14 November 2003.

(3)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(4)  Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, current 2nd edition (Geneva, 1993-1997), as well as draft 3rd edition (Geneva, 2003).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/376 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/376

---

(2004/C 84 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Complaint P2000/4974

Could the Commission indicate the state of play with regard to complaint No P2000/4974 relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment concerning refurbishment proposals for Eyre Square, Galway? What conclusions has it come to, and when does it expect to take a final decision in the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

This complaint related to the absence of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for an urban development project consisting of refurbishment works on Eyre Square, which is the principal square in Galway. In 2003, the Irish authorities confirmed that an EIA had been undertaken for the project. On the basis that no breach of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) could be identified, the complaint file was subsequently closed.

---

(1)  Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/377 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/377

---

(2004/C 84 E/0437)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0364/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Packaging Waste Directive and Ireland

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent in December 2002, as announced in Commission press release IP/02/1922, regarding Ireland's failure to implement correctly the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) on packaging and packaging waste?

What action has it taken or is it considering taking in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 19 December 2002 with regard to Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (2), as it was not satisfied that Irish transposing legislation was adequate for the purpose of meeting recovery and recycling targets that need to be achieved by the end of 2005 under the terms of Article 6 of the Directive. In June 2003, Ireland notified new legislation, with strengthened provisions in relation to Article 6. As a result, the Commission subsequently terminated the infringement procedure.

---

(1)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/377 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/377

---

(2004/C 84 E/0438)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Separation of Accounts Directive

What reply, if any, did the Commission receive from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland and five other Member States in June 2002 (as announced in Commission press release IP/02/944) in relation to the Separation of Accounts Directive — Commission Directive 2000/52/EC (1)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Ireland replied to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 26 June 2002 by letter of 26 August 2002. In its reply, Ireland stated that it is in substantial compliance with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, other than in relation to the requirement to inform the Commission of the relevant provisions.

More specifically, Ireland further confirmed that the above-mentioned Directive has been brought to the attention of all relevant State bodies to whom the Directive applies, which were therefore aware of the Directive and of the necessity to comply with it.

According to the Irish authorities all such bodies were complying fully with its provisions, with the exception of the following:

| — | The Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) Group was not expected to be compliant until 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) Group was not expected to be compliant until 2003.

| — | In relation to Radio Telefis Éireann (RTE), the legislation enacted in 2001 imposed requirements on RTE and gave powers to the relevant Minister with regard to the separation of accounts by RTE along the lines required by the Directive. These include a provision which sought to clarify the public service remit of RTE and the manner in which licence fee revenue may be used and accounted for, a requirement that licence fee revenue or income generated from public service broadcasting services must not be used by RTE to provide commercial channels as well as a requirement to keep separate accounts in that regard. Finally, Ireland concluded that RTE was in the process of making changes to its accounting systems, which should facilitate compliance with the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

In relation to Radio Telefis Éireann (RTE), the legislation enacted in 2001 imposed requirements on RTE and gave powers to the relevant Minister with regard to the separation of accounts by RTE along the lines required by the Directive. These include a provision which sought to clarify the public service remit of RTE and the manner in which licence fee revenue may be used and accounted for, a requirement that licence fee revenue or income generated from public service broadcasting services must not be used by RTE to provide commercial channels as well as a requirement to keep separate accounts in that regard. Finally, Ireland concluded that RTE was in the process of making changes to its accounting systems, which should facilitate compliance with the Directive.

Ireland further stated that all private entities currently enjoying special or exclusive rights or being entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest are covered by Article 4(2) of the Directive. For the future, Ireland stated that all Government Ministries have been made aware of the necessity to ensure that any bodies which may in the future be covered by the Directive are promptly made aware of the same and of the need to comply with its provisions.

The Commission considers that Ireland's letter does not meet the legal requirements that would allow the Commission to verify that Ireland has fully complied with its obligations. Indeed, Ireland was not able to identify the national legal acts implementing the Directive (full title and official publication references of the national act), including a full copy of the relevant measures.

As Ireland continued to be in breach of the implementation and notification requirements, the Commission was obliged to deliver an application pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty to the Court of Justice (affaire C-99/03).

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/378 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/378

---

(2004/C 84 E/0439)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Animal experiments in Ireland

What reply did the Commission receive from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in June 2002, as announced in Commission press release IP/02/946, regarding Ireland's failure to comply with the 2001 European Court of Justice ruling on Ireland's compliance with the Animal Experiments Directive (Council Directive 86/609/EEC (1))?

What action has it taken or is it proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

On 27 June 2002, the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland under Article 228 of the EC Treaty with regard to Ireland's failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, dated 18 October 2001, in case C-354/99 Commission v Ireland concerning the application of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 (2) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, and Article 10 of the EC Treaty establishing the European Community. In December 2002, Ireland notified new legislation to comply with the judgement. The infringement procedure was subsequently terminated.

---

(1)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/379

---

(2004/C 84 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Irish Government charges and the Seveso II Directive

What has been the Irish Government's reply to the reasoned opinion announced on 18 July 2003 (IP/03/1048) regarding the Irish Government's decision to charge members of the public for expressing an opinion on developments concerning major industrial installations under the Seveso II Directive on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances (Council Directive 96/82/EC (1)).

What action is the Commission proposing to take in this matter?

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/379

---

(2004/C 84 E/0441)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Public consultation during the preparation of emergency plans under the Seveso II Directive

What has been the Irish Government's reply to the reasoned opinion announced on 18 July 2003 (IP/03/1048) regarding the failure of the Irish Government to ensure adequate consultation of the public during the preparation of emergency plans, as required by the Seveso II Directive on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances (Council Directive 96/82/EC (1))?

What action is the Commission now proposing to take in this matter?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0368/04 and E-0369/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 11 July 2003 with regard to Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances, as it was not satisfied that Irish transposing legislation was compliant with Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Directive. The issues referred to by the Honourable Member relate to Article 11 (public consultation in the preparation of external emergency plans) and Article 13 (right of public to express an opinion on certain developments). In September 2003, Ireland notified new legislation with regard to Article 11 (2). This appears to rectify a weakness in the previous Irish transposing legislation. Ireland's position has not changed with regard to the use of participation fees. The Commission is still considering Ireland's response with regard to Article 12 of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

(2)  S.I. No 402 of 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/380 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/380

---

(2004/C 84 E/0442)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0372/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Interrogation of the editor Alexander Podrabinek

Interfax and Lenta.ru reported on 27 January that Alexander Podrabinek, a Soviet dissident and former political prisoner, currently editor-in-chief of the press agency Prima Human Rights Information, had received a summons from the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) to appear at Moscow's Lefortovo Prison to answer questions. According to Mr Podrabinek, who is also editor-in-chief of the newspaper Express Chronica, this summons is probably connected to the FSB's seizure in December of 4 376 copies of the book ‘FSB Blows Up Russia’, written by Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer and an associate of the self-exiled businessman, Boris Berezovsky, and the historian Yuri Felshtinsky (see also RFE/RL Newsline, 30 December 2003). The book claims that the FSB were behind a series of bombings of flats that killed more than 300 people in 1999 and served as a pretext to resume military attacks on Chechnya. According to Mr Podrabinek, the Prima agency had bought copies of the book, which had been printed in Latvia and seized on their way to Moscow to be sold in bookshops.

What information does the Commission have about this latest example of the Russian authorities' repression of the freedom of expression and opinion? What initiatives is it planning to prevent the Russian authorities from taking decisions that are harmful to Mr Podrabinek and media freedom? What is the Commission's opinion of the increasingly widespread monitoring by the FSB at all levels of Russian society and institutions? In the light of the systematic violations of the freedom of information, the press and opinion, which have characterised Russian life for the last three or four years, does the Commission not believe that it should reconsider its support programmes for the Russian media?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of recent events involving Mr Podrabinek, whose Prima-news website was set up with the help of a grant under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Micro-project Facility. Not only in this specific case, but also in relation to media freedom more generally, the Commission is closely following developments in Russia. In this regard, the Commission recalls the public declaration of concern on media freedom issued by the EU in July 2003. In view of recent developments, the Commission considers it all the more important to support the development of an independent and pluralistic media in Russia.

In its recent Communication on relations with Russia (1), the Commission underlined the need for the EU to hold an open and frank dialogue, in order to insist that Russia respect the values to which it is committed as a member of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe, such as respect for human rights and media freedom. These issues are frequently raised in the political dialogue which the EU holds with the Russian authorities.

The Commission's activity is not limited to political dialogue. Under the EIDHR 2004 call for proposals, for example, freedom of the media has been identified as one of the thematic priorities. The Commission intends to target a number of activities, including support to enhance freedom of expression and independent media, in particular at the regional level; strengthening professionalism and ethics in Russian journalism; strengthening the legal and institutional framework for the protection of press freedom; empowering journalists to take actions in defence of their rights; improving the quality of management of the media, aiming at ensuring financial viability, tax law compliance, and ultimately de facto independence; supporting local community independent media and improving the quality and coverage of human rights issues in the media.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 106 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/381 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/381

---

(2004/C 84 E/0443)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0375/04

by Martin Kastler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Measures to prevent the consumption of alcopops by young people

Alcohol is one of the most important factors posing a risk to health in European countries. Europe is the continent with the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in the world, and experts estimate the burden placed on health budgets by alcohol-related illness and disability at between 8 % and 10 %. More serious problems include the fact that the age at which young people begin consuming alcohol is dropping, and the targeting of young people in advertising for alcopops.

| 1. | Self-regulation of the economy, which was the method proposed in the Council Recommendation on alcohol and young people (1), is not producing the desired results. In particular, the consumption of alcopops by young people has increased several fold within a few years in certain Member States. Has the Commission carried out any investigations into alcopops? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Self-regulation of the economy, which was the method proposed in the Council Recommendation on alcohol and young people (1), is not producing the desired results. In particular, the consumption of alcopops by young people has increased several fold within a few years in certain Member States. Has the Commission carried out any investigations into alcopops?

| 2. | Do specific plans exist for achieving a uniform reduction in the consumption of alcopops by young people at European level, with regard to either sales, advertising or taxation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do specific plans exist for achieving a uniform reduction in the consumption of alcopops by young people at European level, with regard to either sales, advertising or taxation?

| 3. | Are specific measures, campaigns or funding planned over the next few years to alert young people to the problems of alcohol consumption? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are specific measures, campaigns or funding planned over the next few years to alert young people to the problems of alcohol consumption?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission fully shares the concerns of the Honourable Member on the problems caused by alcohol and especially by sales of ‘alcopops’ to young people. In the Commission's view, the alcohol industry bears a significant responsibility for the development, marketing and selling of their products. This especially concerns industry activities which target children and young people.
  At its meeting of 5 June 2001 the Council adopted the Council Recommendation 2001/458/EC on the Drinking of Alcohol by young people (2), in particular children and adolescents. As part of the Commission's preparation of its proposal for this document, several inquiries were made on the consumption of alcopops. The inquiries showed that there was a growing problem of drunkenness and binge drinking among teenagers and young adults in the Community. It was obvious that the consumption of alcopops by young people could neither be dealt with completely separately from the consumption of other alcohol beverages, or separately from the problems due to the inappropriate consumption of alcohol in society as a whole. Many studies have shown that the age of first drinking alcohol, and advanced drinking habits at a young age, are associated with increased risk of subsequent problem drinking. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission fully shares the concerns of the Honourable Member on the problems caused by alcohol and especially by sales of ‘alcopops’ to young people. In the Commission's view, the alcohol industry bears a significant responsibility for the development, marketing and selling of their products. This especially concerns industry activities which target children and young people.

At its meeting of 5 June 2001 the Council adopted the Council Recommendation 2001/458/EC on the Drinking of Alcohol by young people (2), in particular children and adolescents. As part of the Commission's preparation of its proposal for this document, several inquiries were made on the consumption of alcopops. The inquiries showed that there was a growing problem of drunkenness and binge drinking among teenagers and young adults in the Community. It was obvious that the consumption of alcopops by young people could neither be dealt with completely separately from the consumption of other alcohol beverages, or separately from the problems due to the inappropriate consumption of alcohol in society as a whole. Many studies have shown that the age of first drinking alcohol, and advanced drinking habits at a young age, are associated with increased risk of subsequent problem drinking.

| 2. | The youth culture underlying the drinking behaviour of young people is increasingly of an international nature. This fact requires an integrated approach at all levels. The Commission is at present following up and monitoring the implementation of the above mentioned Council Recommendation in the Member States. The follow-up of the Recommendation will show whether the alcohol industry has taken a more responsible approach to young people and alcohol. The Commission is invited to draft a first report on the implementation of the proposed measures by the end of 2005. In this report the Commission should also consider possible need for further actions required to reduce alcohol-related problems among young people. The enforcement of existing laws and regulations needs special attention in this context. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The youth culture underlying the drinking behaviour of young people is increasingly of an international nature. This fact requires an integrated approach at all levels. The Commission is at present following up and monitoring the implementation of the above mentioned Council Recommendation in the Member States. The follow-up of the Recommendation will show whether the alcohol industry has taken a more responsible approach to young people and alcohol. The Commission is invited to draft a first report on the implementation of the proposed measures by the end of 2005. In this report the Commission should also consider possible need for further actions required to reduce alcohol-related problems among young people. The enforcement of existing laws and regulations needs special attention in this context.

| 3. | At its meeting of 5 June 2001, the Council also adopted Conclusions on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm. In its Conclusions the Council invites the Commission to make concrete proposals on this. The strategy should complement national policies. The Commission is preparing a proposal for a strategy and a timetable for the different actions. As one important part of the work, the Commission will present information on the economic and social burden of alcohol, including issues of promotion of alcohol, protection of children and young people. |
| --- | --- |

3.

At its meeting of 5 June 2001, the Council also adopted Conclusions on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm. In its Conclusions the Council invites the Commission to make concrete proposals on this. The strategy should complement national policies. The Commission is preparing a proposal for a strategy and a timetable for the different actions. As one important part of the work, the Commission will present information on the economic and social burden of alcohol, including issues of promotion of alcohol, protection of children and young people.

| 4. | Community actions have to complement national policies. But as the Community can only adopt binding legislation within the remits of paragraph 4 of Article 152 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would like to emphasise the central role of the Member States in tackling these phenomena. Hence combating problems caused by alcopops and by alcohol in general needs concerted actions by all stakeholders, including families, schools, employers, industry, advertisers and national regulators. Effective enforcement of existing national legislation, for example on age limits, could already make a significant difference. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Community actions have to complement national policies. But as the Community can only adopt binding legislation within the remits of paragraph 4 of Article 152 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would like to emphasise the central role of the Member States in tackling these phenomena. Hence combating problems caused by alcopops and by alcohol in general needs concerted actions by all stakeholders, including families, schools, employers, industry, advertisers and national regulators. Effective enforcement of existing national legislation, for example on age limits, could already make a significant difference.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 16.6.2001, p. 38.

(2)  OJ L 161, 16.6.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/382 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/382

---

(2004/C 84 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0379/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Dismissal of pregnant workers

Workers at the Citizens' Service Centres (KEPs), whose creation and operation is funded by the European Union, have been taken on with freelance contracts although there is not the slightest doubt that these contracts in fact conceal employment, as the work they do meets fixed and constant needs. The workers at the KEPs are thus deprived of leave, allowances etc. There are cases of women who have been dismissed by the KEPs because they have become pregnant.

On 10 February 2004 the case of Philomela Kontari is being heard in a court in Corfu. She worked at the Paxos KEP and was dismissed in her eighth month of pregnancy because, on medical orders, she was temporarily not supposed to work, until the birth, because of complications in the pregnancy.

| 1. | Can the Commission investigate and decide whether the freelance contracts of the staff at the KEPs, which are funded by Community appropriations, illegally conceal employment contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission investigate and decide whether the freelance contracts of the staff at the KEPs, which are funded by Community appropriations, illegally conceal employment contracts?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that in the case of pregnant women Greece is contravening Directive 92/85/EEC (1), which seeks to improve the health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and Directive 76/207/EEC (2) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that in the case of pregnant women Greece is contravening Directive 92/85/EEC (1), which seeks to improve the health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and Directive 76/207/EEC (2) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. | The determination of the nature of a working relationship, and in particular whether it is an employment or a self employment relationship is an issue that has to be addressed by the Member States' competent authorities |
| --- | --- |

1.

The determination of the nature of a working relationship, and in particular whether it is an employment or a self employment relationship is an issue that has to be addressed by the Member States' competent authorities

| 2. | According to the information provided to the Commission, Greece has properly transposed Directives 92/85/EEC and 76/207/EEC as regards the protection of pregnant workers against dismissal. The Commission services will however contact the Greek authorities with a view to obtaining further information in relation to the position of pregnant workers in KEPs and will inform the Honourable Member of Parliament as soon as the information is received. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to the information provided to the Commission, Greece has properly transposed Directives 92/85/EEC and 76/207/EEC as regards the protection of pregnant workers against dismissal. The Commission services will however contact the Greek authorities with a view to obtaining further information in relation to the position of pregnant workers in KEPs and will inform the Honourable Member of Parliament as soon as the information is received.

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/383

---

(2004/C 84 E/0445)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0380/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Contract-holders at the Fire Service

Every year the Fire Service takes on approximately 5 500 fire-fighting/rescue workers on contracts; it states that this is because of a lack of staff (3 500 vacant posts). These workers, who have been the same for decades, are taken on every year on a fixed-term contract, usually for five months, based on a five-year list. The basic qualification for being on the list was the fact that the workers in question had served as volunteer forest fire-fighters. These workers, however, are called upon to intervene in events (road accidents, floods, earthquakes, etc.) throughout the duration of the year and after their contracts have ended, unpaid, on the grounds that they are volunteer fire-fighters. Under the Fire Service's regulations, any refusal by them to work on a volunteer basis may have a consequence on the renewal of their contracts.

| 1. | In view of Directive 2000/78 (1), do the above facts not constitute victimisation under the terms of Article 11? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of Directive 2000/78 (1), do the above facts not constitute victimisation under the terms of Article 11?

| 2. | Can those of the workers who, despite this, yield to pressure and agree to carry out duties whenever they are called on and not only in exceptional circumstances (at least four times per month) — thus making it impossible for them to be employed by another employer — argue that they are meeting fixed and constant needs of the Fire Service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can those of the workers who, despite this, yield to pressure and agree to carry out duties whenever they are called on and not only in exceptional circumstances (at least four times per month) — thus making it impossible for them to be employed by another employer — argue that they are meeting fixed and constant needs of the Fire Service?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. | Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation puts in place such a framework, and prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. The Directive covers access to employment, pay, working conditions, dismissal, training etc, and both direct and indirect discrimination are covered. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation puts in place such a framework, and prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. The Directive covers access to employment, pay, working conditions, dismissal, training etc, and both direct and indirect discrimination are covered.

From the information provided, the Commission does not believe that the treatment of the workers in question is based on any of the grounds of discrimination covered by the Directive, and that therefore the issue raised does not fail within the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC.

| 2. | There is no Community legislation establishing the criteria for when a fixed-term contract rather than an open-ended contract can be concluded. Whether the work carried out meets fixed and constant needs of the Fire Service is an issue to be addressed by the competent national authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no Community legislation establishing the criteria for when a fixed-term contract rather than an open-ended contract can be concluded. Whether the work carried out meets fixed and constant needs of the Fire Service is an issue to be addressed by the competent national authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/383

---

(2004/C 84 E/0446)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0385/04

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Commercial activities of Ordnance Survey

Ordnance Survey, the UK's national mapping agency, receives significant funds from UK Government grants and in closed tender government mapping contracts. Since 1999, it has undertaken its own commercial aerial survey business. Before this date, aerial surveys had been an exclusively private sector business, and there was a well-established division of interest between Ordnance Survey (maps) and the private sector (aerial surveys). However, it has been alleged that OS is now using the money it receives from public funds in part to support its own commercial aerial survey business. The competitors of Ordnance Survey claim that their business has been severely damaged by this unfair and subsidised competition with the private sector.

| 1. | Does any of the government funding of Ordnance Survey amount to improper state aid? Do the commercial activities undertaken by Ordnance Survey since 1999 contravene any EU laws on competition? If so, what action is the Commission able to take to ensure fair competition between Ordnance Survey and its private sector competitors in the future? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does any of the government funding of Ordnance Survey amount to improper state aid? Do the commercial activities undertaken by Ordnance Survey since 1999 contravene any EU laws on competition? If so, what action is the Commission able to take to ensure fair competition between Ordnance Survey and its private sector competitors in the future?

| 2. | Does Ordnance survey fall within the scope of the EU rules which require accounting transparency for entities which mix state-funded and private sector activities? In particular, does EU law require OS to account for its commercial and state-funded activities separately? If yes, is the Commission satisfied that OS is complying fully with these rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Ordnance survey fall within the scope of the EU rules which require accounting transparency for entities which mix state-funded and private sector activities? In particular, does EU law require OS to account for its commercial and state-funded activities separately? If yes, is the Commission satisfied that OS is complying fully with these rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission has not been informed that Ordnance Survey receives funding from the UK authorities. It is therefore not in a position to state whether the funding to which the Honourable Member refers constitutes state aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty and, if so, whether it is compatible with the common market. Such funding could be regarded as compensation for services provided and not state aid.

If Ordnance Survey's work is regarded as a service of general economic interest, the funding would be regarded as compensation if:

| — | Ordnance Survey undertakes public service obligations and these obligations are clearly defined, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ordnance Survey undertakes public service obligations and these obligations are clearly defined,

| — | the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated are established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, |
| --- | --- |

—

the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated are established in advance in an objective and transparent manner,

| — | the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, |
| --- | --- |

—

the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations,

| — | and Ordnance Survey was chosen to discharge the public service obligations pursuant to a public procurement procedure which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community or, if not, the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately equipped so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations (see judgment of 24 July 2003 in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00). |
| --- | --- |

—

and Ordnance Survey was chosen to discharge the public service obligations pursuant to a public procurement procedure which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community or, if not, the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately equipped so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations (see judgment of 24 July 2003 in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00).

The fact that Ordnance Survey has discharged public service obligations since 1999 is not in itself a breach of the competition rules. However, it may not use funding received as compensation for any public service work to subsidise purely commercial activities. Such overcompensation could, if it affected competition and trade between Member States, constitute state aid incompatible with the common market.

Commission Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1) requires separate accounts to be kept:

| — | by ‘any undertaking that enjoys a special or exclusive right granted by a Member State pursuant to Article 86(1) of the Treaty, or that is entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest pursuant to Article 86(2) of the Treaty and receives state aid in any form whatsoever, including any grant, support or compensation, in relation to such service and which carries on other activities’; |
| --- | --- |

—

by ‘any undertaking that enjoys a special or exclusive right granted by a Member State pursuant to Article 86(1) of the Treaty, or that is entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest pursuant to Article 86(2) of the Treaty and receives state aid in any form whatsoever, including any grant, support or compensation, in relation to such service and which carries on other activities’;

| — | if its total annual net turnover was not less than EUR 40 million over the period of the two financial years preceding that in which it enjoyed a special or exclusive right or was entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

if its total annual net turnover was not less than EUR 40 million over the period of the two financial years preceding that in which it enjoyed a special or exclusive right or was entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest;

| — | and if it receives aid which was not fixed for an appropriate period following an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

and if it receives aid which was not fixed for an appropriate period following an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure.

Ordnance Survey could therefore be subject to an obligation to keep separate accounts if it is entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest.

The UK authorities have told the Commission that they have introduced the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative measures to comply with the transparency obligations imposed by the Community directives.

---

(1)  Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980, OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, as amended by Directives 85/413/EEC of 24 July 1985, OJ L 229, 28.8.1985, 93/84/EEC of 30 September 1993, OJ L 254, 12.10.1993 and 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000, OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/385 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/385

---

(2004/C 84 E/0447)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0386/04

by Jean Saint-Josse (EDD) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Wind turbines

The construction of a large number of wind turbines is planned in France.

Has the European Commission studied the total financial cost for public authorities (Europe, national and others) of developing this type of energy in comparison with the cost of other forms of energy production?

Moreover, given the serious consequences of the building of wind turbines, in particular for migratory birds and the safety of goods and people, does the Commission still consider it appropriate to encourage this type of energy production?

Has the Commission assessed the benefits and drawbacks of wind turbines, with reference to the latest research?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The total financial cost for public authorities has not been studied as such by the Community but the Commission supports, under its programmes, studies which aim at updating data regarding the following aspects of wind energy: technology, costs, prices and values, industry and employment, environment and market development.

Given the important contribution that renewable energy sources, such as wind energy, are making to tackling climate change, including EU targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to encourage this type of energy production.

Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that the achievement of this target is not to the detriment of other environmental objectives, including nature protection. The compatibility of these policy objectives is envisaged by the process of environmental assessment outlined in the Commission's answer to Written Question P-0339/04 by Mr Bernié (1).

---

(1)  See page 365.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/386

---

(2004/C 84 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/04

by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Wind turbines

In France, the planned proliferation of wind turbines in rural and natural areas raises the question of whether they are compatible with the environment, public safety and the upkeep of traditional customs, including hunting.

It would appear that ‘buffer zones’ of 500 m to 1 km are being advocated, in which hunting, in particular, would be prohibited (in Germany, for example).

Are there examples in Europe of hunting practices that have been prohibited because of the presence of wind turbines? What reasons were given?

Has the Commission produced a study of the socio-cultural consequences and the consequences for the countryside of the European policy of promoting this form of energy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of examples in Europe where hunting practices have been prohibited because of the presence of wind turbines.

The Commission's position in relation to the development of wind farms in environmentally sensitive areas, including Natura 2000 areas, is outlined in its response to Written Question P-0339/04 by Mr Bernié (1).

Restrictions in hunting within a buffer zone around wind turbines exclusively in response to these developments would not appear to be a measure justified on nature conservation grounds but may be due to other human health and safety considerations.

The Community has not produced a global study of socio-cultural consequences and the consequences for the countryside but the Community programmes require that the projects funded in the field of renewable energy in general, and of the wind energy sector in particular, provide an impact assessment under social, economic and environmental aspects.

---

(1)  See page 365.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/386

---

(2004/C 84 E/0449)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0391/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Hair dye and cancer risks

Many women over the age of 45 and a growing minority of men over the age of 45 dye their hair regularly. New American research (published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, January 2004) shows that women who started dyeing their hair before 1980 have a 40 % higher chance of contracting Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a malignant disease of the lymphatic system.

In 2002 American researchers (University of Southern California) had already ascertained that regularly dyeing the hair led to a doubling in the risk of bladder cancer. The substances in hair dye also cause a higher incidence of cancer of the uterus.

It is probably toxic chemical substances such as para-phenylene diamine (PPD) and tetrahydro-6-nitroquinoxaline that cause these forms of cancer.

Does the Commission agree that the abovementioned toxins must not be allowed to occur in consumer products such as hair dyes?

What is the current situation as regards the scientific investigations being carried out by the Scientific Committee for Cosmetic Products, as announced by the Commission on 17 January 2002 in its answer to a written question by Torben Lund (E-2881/01 (1))?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Further to the information already provided in the answer to Written Question E-2881/01 by Mr Lund, the following actions and measures have been taken.

At the level of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP)

The SCCNFP on 27 February 2002 adopted a discussion paper that was placed on the web-site of the Commission, Health and Consumer Protection DG. Interested parties were invited to comment. On 4 June 2002 it adopted A strategy for testing hair-dye cosmetic ingredients for their potential genotoxicity/mutagenicity.' This was supplemented by a recent opinion of 17 December 2002 updating ‘Basic requirements for toxicological dossiers to be evaluated by the SCCNFP’.

Industry is required to submit files that must conform to the above-mentioned principles and the ‘Notes of Guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients for their safety evaluation’. The 5th revision of these notes was adopted on 20 October 2003.

At the level of the Risk Management

In 2003 the Commission, together with Member States and representatives of both consumers and industry, discussed strategy for the systematic evaluation of hair dyes in relation to published reports on a possible link between permanent hair dye use and bladder cancer. The strategy was agreed on July 2003 and published on the web-site of the Commission, Directorate-General Enterprise. The main element of the strategy is a tiered, modulated approach requiring industry to submit by certain deadlines safety dossiers on hair dyes to be evaluated by SCCNFP. The actions and deadlines for hair dyes for which files are to be submitted alone or in combination are included in the published strategy. The overall objective of this strategy is to regulate the use of substances such as hair dye ingredients on the basis of the most recent scientific evaluation of dossiers.

Substances for which no file has been submitted for risk assessment by the SCCNFP will be banned immediately whereas substances for which information is available will be assessed later on. The Commission is now in the process of consulting Member States with a view to a ban of a first list of more than 100 substances for which no safety file was submitted by the end of September 2003. This measure will be adopted following the comitology procedure. For substances for which a file is available, a deadline of July 2005 is in place for the files to be brought up to date with the new data requirements set by the SCCNFP. A deadline on submissions of tests conducted on combinations of substances to simulate the real life exposure of consumers will be set after consultation with the Member States.

The two substances mentioned by the Honourable Member, para-phenylene diamine and tetrahydro-6-nitroquinoxaline, are also covered by the strategy. As, to date, files for these two substances are available, updated dossiers which meet the new data requirements set by the SCCNFP, have to be submitted by July 2005 at the latest.

With regard to the recent publication in the American Journal of Epidemiology (2) the authors concluded, that they found ‘an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among women who started using darker hair-colouring products before 1980 but not among women who started using products after that. Future studies designed to collect similar exposure information are needed to determine whether our findings for hair dye use before 1980 are replicated in other populations.’ The Commission will conduct a comprehensive literature review on all publications linking the use of hair dyes with various forms of cancer and submit it to the SCCNFP with a view to obtaining its analysis and advice on this issue in a holistic comprehensive manner.

---

(1)  OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 185.

(2)  Zhang Y, Holford TR, Leaderer Β et al. Hair-colouring products use and risk of Non-Hodkin's Lymphoma: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:148-154.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/388 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/388

---

(2004/C 84 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/04

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   The EU's continuing capacity to receive large quotas of immigrants from third-world countries

According to Eurostat, the population of EU-15 rose in 2003 by 1 276 200 to 380,8 million, with 982 600 persons or 77 % of this growth being made up of immigrants to the EU, mainly from third world countries.

At the same time, the Head of the UN Population Office, Joseph Chamie, has published information showing that the EU's population figures have been on the decline since 1998. Joseph Chamie's statement is then used to claim that the EU needs immigration from third-world countries.

A negative population trend has indeed been recorded in certain east and central European countries and, if Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are counted as part of Europe, there has been a slight fall in the population figure for the European area as a whole although this is clearly not the case for EU-15.

It is well known that the immigration flows from the third world are directed towards EU-15 in particular. In addition, the Commission's own analyses have concluded that the changes in the age structure of the population in the years to come mean that the EU will need to see a larger proportion of the active age groups entering the labour market and remaining there longer because immigrants from the third world cannot, as a general rule, replace the skilled Europeans who leave the labour market early or stay away from it altogether.

Will the Commission state whether it is of the opinion that the heavily overpopulated cities in the EU, the overloaded transport systems, the overstretched welfare systems, unemployment in the EU and the major social and crime issues associated with the EU's immigrant communities indicate that the EU should continue to receive such large quotas of people from non-western cultures?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

In its communication on immigration, integration and employment of 3 June 2003 (1), the Commission referred to demographic estimates showing that the population of Europe is ageing and is set to decline between now and 2010-2020. The extent of these demographic developments enables us to predict that the Lisbon target of a 70 % employment rate will be achieved by 2010, or even surpassed.

Although the economic implications of these socio-demographic changes will become apparent only over time, increasingly frequent labour shortages have already been observed in several Member States. The Commission considers that, even if immigration is not a realistic solution that will entirely offset the effects of demographic ageing on the employment market, labour migration can help to reduce the shortages in the short term. It can also contribute to spreading over a longer period the repercussions of the demographic transition which will take place between 2010 and 2030.

A common immigration policy that is well controlled, implemented at Community level and backed by an ambitious policy on integration is necessary in order to respond properly to these needs.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/389 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/389

---

(2004/C 84 E/0451)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Outbreak of avian influenza

| 1. | Can the EU take measures within 24 hours of a case of avian influenza being discovered in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the EU take measures within 24 hours of a case of avian influenza being discovered in the EU?

| 2. | Has the Commission drawn up a crisis management plan? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission drawn up a crisis management plan?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

| 1. | In case of emergencies due to major animal diseases, the Commission has procedures in place enabling it to immediately react and take the appropriate actions falling under its own responsibility to protect the Community against this kind of threat, including — for example — a network of mobile phones to exchange information with the Member States' veterinary authorities within one hour, and which is operational 24 hours a day. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In case of emergencies due to major animal diseases, the Commission has procedures in place enabling it to immediately react and take the appropriate actions falling under its own responsibility to protect the Community against this kind of threat, including — for example — a network of mobile phones to exchange information with the Member States' veterinary authorities within one hour, and which is operational 24 hours a day.

The capacity of the Commission to rapidly react has been demonstrated on several recent occasions such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001, when the Commission adopted a safeguard decision in less than 24 hours from the confirmation of the outbreak and during the avian influenza outbreak in the Netherlands in 2003, when a Community expert was sent to that Member State during the same weekend in which the emergency arose.

Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to underline that it is the primary responsibility of the Member States to promptly implement disease control measures established in Community legislation, in case of a suspicion or confirmation of an outbreak of major animal diseases such as avian influenza in the Community.

To this aim, the Member States have contingency plans in place which have been approved by the Commission. To ensure that the new Member States will also have such plans in place, the Commission is currently scrutinising the plans submitted by them in conformity with the 2003 Accession Treaty.

| 2. | The Commission has an Emergency Manual that establishes the actions to be taken in the event of an animal health emergency which may pose a very high risk for the Community and contains standard documents in the Community official languages to facilitate their rapid use. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has an Emergency Manual that establishes the actions to be taken in the event of an animal health emergency which may pose a very high risk for the Community and contains standard documents in the Community official languages to facilitate their rapid use.

As regards the threat for public health due to Avian Influenza, the Commission will soon adopt a working paper on Influenza Pandemic Preparedness and Response Planning in the Community. The document sets out the main objectives for action and gives an outline of the role of the Commission and the Member States. The paper addresses key issues identified as the result of an extensive consultation process, such as management and co-ordination, surveillance, prevention, mitigation and response, which covers the availability of vaccines and anti-virals, and finally communication and research. This consultative document is meant to promote effective policies and measures specified in correlation to the stages of an influenza pandemic that are explained on the basis of the World Health Organisation (WHO) definitions. The document adds value to preparedness planning at national level, which is being reviewed and updated by the Member States in response to the ongoing avian influenza outbreaks in Asia.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/390 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/390

---

(2004/C 84 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0415/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Review of decision on Norrmejerier

Norrmejerier is building an installation for the processing of whey, biological purification of waste water and production of green energy. The project period has been extended to 31 November 2004, but Norrmejerier needs a further six months to get the installation into shape and complete its final report. The installation will be operational in April 2005. It cannot be absolutely guaranteed that a final report will be ready by that date, and Norrmejerier has accordingly sought an extension until 31 May. This construction project is excellent from the environmental point of view: it will reduce the use of fossil fuel and alleviate the greenhouse effect.

The payment of support to Norrmejerier from LIFE has been halted, and this is causing Norrmejerier financial problems.

Would the Commission consider reviewing the decision to withdraw support for Norrmejerier, thereby giving it the opportunity to complete the project according to plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The LIFE Programme (1) aims at contributing to the implementation, updating and development of Community environment policy and of environmental legislation, in particular as regards the integration of the environment into other policies, and to sustainable development in the Community.

LIFE beneficiaries commit themselves to fulfil the requirements laid down in the individual Commission decision for their project and notably the standard administrative provisions (cf. LIFE web-site (2)).

The project LIFE00 ENV/S/854 proposed by the beneficiary Norrmejerier aims at building a pilot plant to ensure protein recycling and energy recovery in dairy production. Considering its potential positive environmental benefits, the project proposal was selected in 2000. In order to meet the beneficiary's need for more time for project implementation, a prolongation was exceptionally granted for 12 months, adding to the original timetable of three years.

Recently, the Commission received a new prolongation request, but decided to terminate the project. The Commission has carefully examined the Honourable Member's request to review this decision, but cannot do so and still be in conformity with the standard administrative provisions applying equally to all LIFE projects. The beneficiary has not been able to meet the extended deadlines and will not be able to achieve the original project conditions, thereby jeopardising project results. The project has barely started and only a small part of eligible costs have been incurred so far.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2)  http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/390 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/390

---

(2004/C 84 E/0453)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0417/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject:   Sackings from the Finex Group factory

The Finnish Finex Group owns a clothing factory in Nogueira, Maia, Portugal, which used to employ some 1 000 workers. Finex has already pressurised over half of them to accept dismissal agreements. Of the current 430 workers, some 300 women are now being pressurised to consent to unacceptable agreements on their dismissal by the end of this month. It should be noted that this company has received various subsidies.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | How much Community subsidy has been paid to the Finex Group in Portugal and in other EU countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How much Community subsidy has been paid to the Finex Group in Portugal and in other EU countries?

| 2. | What measures are the Commission and the Portuguese Government going to take with a view to defending the employment and all the rights of Finex's workers, most of whom are women? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures are the Commission and the Portuguese Government going to take with a view to defending the employment and all the rights of Finex's workers, most of whom are women?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to demand that the subsidies paid to the Finex Group should be repaid, if Finex continues to put pressure on its workers with a view to getting rid of them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to demand that the subsidies paid to the Finex Group should be repaid, if Finex continues to put pressure on its workers with a view to getting rid of them?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Finex has received the following aid:

Community Support Framework (CSF II)

| (in euro) |
| --- |
| | Total | European Social Fund (ESF) | Orçameno da Segurança Social (OSS) |
| PEDIP II | 20 467,54 | 15 350,65 | 5 116,89 |

(in euro)

Total

European Social Fund (ESF)

Orçameno da Segurança Social (OSS)

PEDIP II

20 467,54

15 350,65

5 116,89

The granting of ESF assistance for vocational training measures is not subject to conditions linked to undertakings' continued existence, but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations in force at the time of allocation of such assistance.

The Commission feels that any investment in human capital is of the greatest importance at national and regional levels. It must be underlined that ESF funding does not support a company as such, but provides an investment in human capital, so that the training which individuals benefit from improves their employability. Furthermore, as far as the Commission is aware, the company concerned is not in breach of the rules on the granting of Structural Fund assistance.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the company concerned has received cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to EUR 308 413, for a project approved on 11 February 1996 under the programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (see CSF II) (1).

---

(1)  Financial assistance to Portugal for a specific industrial development programme.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/391

---

(2004/C 84 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

In his answer to my question E-1601/03 (1) of 30 June 2003, David Byrne, the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, stated: ‘Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) (the extended feed ban), implemented by Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (3), both last amended by Commission Decision 2002/248/EC (4), aims at preventing cattle from being exposed to ruminant meat-and-bone meal, potentially contaminated with prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It is a crucial tool in the control and eradication of BSE in cattle and therefore necessary to guarantee safe beef. Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is a matter of control. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Preliminary results of a recent ring trial indicate that it is difficult to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the present detection method. However, by modifying the microscopic test, an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins may become available on short term. [...] appropriate validated analytical methods to differentiate ruminant proteins from proteins of other species are not yet available and the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is still reporting deficiencies in the control of the feed ban. The Commission is aware that the conditions to use fishmeal in non-ruminant feed have presented difficulties, resulting in a reduction of the market for fishmeal in non-ruminant animal nutrition since 2001. The proposal aims to simplify some of the conditions for using fishmeal. A step-by-step lifting of the feed ban on a prudent and scientifically justified basis may be considered in the light of development of analytical tests over the next six to twelve months.’

Can the Commission state whether it has already modified the microscopic test and whether an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins is or will shortly be available?

If this is the case, can the Commission confirm whether it has begun or intends (if so, when?) to begin to lift the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed?

Is the Commission aware of the social and economic damage to the Community's fishmeal industry as a result of this temporary restriction, and what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ease these ill-effects?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Commission Directive 2003/126/EC of 23 December 2003 on the analytical method for the determination of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feeding stuffs (5), introduces modifications to the microscopic tests allowing the detection of small amounts of potentially Transmissible Songiform Encephalopathy (TSE) infected proteins in feed containing fishmeal. Member States are to implement the Directive by 1 July 2004.

In the meantime, the Commission's Joint Research Centre is carrying out ring trials to verify the competence of laboratories in the current and new Member States to carry out these controls with this modified method. The results should be available in June 2004. If the results of these ring trials are favourable, a review of the measures on fishmeal will be considered.

As to subsidies or compensation, a detailed analysis of the Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance (FIFG) Regulation shows that the fishmeal and oil processing industry is in general not eligible for public support. The Council has considered that the FIFG's limited resources should be dedicated to rationalising the fishing industry and reducing its impact on marine ecosystems. Regarding support to investment in processing, Point 2.4 of Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (6) specifies that ‘investments shall not be eligible for assistance where they concern: ... fishery and aquaculture products intended to be used and processed for purposes other than human consumption, with the exception of investments exclusively for the treatment, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture wastes;’.

As for financial compensation for cessation of activities or other financial compensation, the relevant Article 16 — temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensations, only applies to ‘fishermen and owners of vessels’. It should be stressed that through the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (7), the Council agreed to delete from paragraph 1 (c) of Article 16 the possibility to grant financial compensation to the processing industry in general ‘where it depends for its supply on a resource covered by a recovery plan and where imports cannot compensate for the reduced suppply’.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.

(3)  OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 32.

(4)  OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 71.

(5)  OJ L 339, 24.12.2003.

(6)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(7)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/393 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/393

---

(2004/C 84 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   High-speed Lubian to Orense rail link giving central access to Galicia

The Spanish Government has just announced the changing of the route of the Lubian-Orense high-speed link in Galicia, which is now to have a double electric track. The modification raises the cost of this line to EUR 1 608 million. Has the Spanish Government submitted a request for funding for this line? What is the deadline for the whole of the line to be completed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is not part of the current trans-European rail network (TEN-T) defined in 1996 (1). Work on this section of rail line is therefore not being funded from the TEN-T budget; nor has funding been received from the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund.

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is however included in the Commission's proposals in the current revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. It forms part of priority project 19, ‘High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula’. When the revised guidelines, including project 19, are adopted by Parliament and the Council, the section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense will be eligible for Community support from the TEN-T budget.

According to information received from the Spanish representative in the High-Level Group on the trans-European transport network chaired by Karel Van Miert, the section will be completed in 2010.

---

(1)  Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/393 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/393

---

(2004/C 84 E/0456)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   The future of publicly-owned regional airports in the light of the recent decision on Charleroi Airport, in Belgium, and Ryanair

In light of the recent Commission decision on Charleroi Airport and Ryanair, can the Commission indicate:

| 1. | How publicly-owned airports can now compete with large privately-owned airports in attracting traffic and new routes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How publicly-owned airports can now compete with large privately-owned airports in attracting traffic and new routes?

| 2. | Has the Commission received any response from publicly-owned regional airports to this decision in regard to Charleroi and, if so, what is that response? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission received any response from publicly-owned regional airports to this decision in regard to Charleroi and, if so, what is that response?

| 3. | Has any economic impact assessment been done on both the fare levels that will now operate from publicly-owned airports as a result of this decision and the effect on regional development in and around this type of airport? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has any economic impact assessment been done on both the fare levels that will now operate from publicly-owned airports as a result of this decision and the effect on regional development in and around this type of airport?

| 4. | Will the Commission be considering new proposals in regard to the whole area of airport fees and charges? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission be considering new proposals in regard to the whole area of airport fees and charges?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

It is for every airport, whether public or private, to decide how to best pit its strengths with competing airports. In any case, such competition should not be distorted through the granting of aid by a Member State or through State resources in any form.

In order to develop a comprehensive approach to competition between airports in general and the application of State aid rules in particular, the Commission, in 2002, has had a study carried out on this subject. This study can be retrieved from the Commission's website: (www.europa.eu.int/comm/transport/ air/rules/indexen.htm). Taking into account the results of this study and recent cases, guidelines will be developed on the application of the Community rules on State aid to airports and air carriers operating at those airports.

The Commission has not received reactions in writing from any regional airport.

The decision in question was based on a complaint about the particular situation at Charleroi airport and the particular advantages granted to Ryanair which had to be examined on the basis of the relevant provisions on State aid of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the Commission has not carried out a general economic impact analysis on the level of tariffs (or airport charges) to be applied to public airports as a result of the Commission decision of 3 February 2004 on Ryanair's operations at Charleroi airport. An analysis on the effect of the decision on regional development in and around this type of airport was not necessary as the decision encourages, under certain conditions, agreements between regional airports and low-cost air carriers which lead to better use of under-used airports, help to solve problems of air transport congestion and give EU citizens more choice.

In any case, a new initiative for a Directive on airport charges is in the Commission's Work Programme for 2004. It is recalled that two previous initiatives were not adopted by the Council (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 16.6.1990 and OJ C 257, 22.8.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/394 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/394

---

(2004/C 84 E/0457)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   European Commission plan for a vertical-takeoff convertiplane

Considering that:

| — | Agusta-Westland, an Italian-British joint venture, and Eurocopter, a Franco-German joint venture, are the leading European companies in the aeronautical sector, more specifically in the construction of helicopters. |
| --- | --- |

—

Agusta-Westland, an Italian-British joint venture, and Eurocopter, a Franco-German joint venture, are the leading European companies in the aeronautical sector, more specifically in the construction of helicopters.

| — | Agusta-Westland signed an agreement three years ago with the American company Bell-Textron to design and build a vertical-takeoff convertiplane, the BA609, using expertise provided by Bell-Boeing, who are in the process of producing a similar model for military use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Agusta-Westland signed an agreement three years ago with the American company Bell-Textron to design and build a vertical-takeoff convertiplane, the BA609, using expertise provided by Bell-Boeing, who are in the process of producing a similar model for military use.

| — | This project is already at an advanced stage and the consortium intends to test experimental protoypes at Cameri military aiport in Piedmont and to apply for preliminary licensing by 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

This project is already at an advanced stage and the consortium intends to test experimental protoypes at Cameri military aiport in Piedmont and to apply for preliminary licensing by 2007.

| — | The European Commission has in the past drafted a similar project to build a convertiplane, given different acronyms such as TILT-ROTOR and ERICA. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Commission has in the past drafted a similar project to build a convertiplane, given different acronyms such as TILT-ROTOR and ERICA.

Can the Commission indicate:

| — | whether it is true that it has drafted another plan of the same kind with the new acronym FINE TRIP and with projected costs of between EUR 90 000 million and EUR 100 000 million until 2015 to build a 10-tonne convertiplane with 20 passenger berths, and that it awarded the contract exclusively to Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter in 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is true that it has drafted another plan of the same kind with the new acronym FINE TRIP and with projected costs of between EUR 90 000 million and EUR 100 000 million until 2015 to build a 10-tonne convertiplane with 20 passenger berths, and that it awarded the contract exclusively to Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter in 2002;

| — | whether a research and planning contract has therefore already been signed with Agusta and Eurocopter, although one of these companies is already carrying out a similar project with the American company Bell-Textron? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether a research and planning contract has therefore already been signed with Agusta and Eurocopter, although one of these companies is already carrying out a similar project with the American company Bell-Textron?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The European rotorcraft industry had already submitted a proposal for a large project on tilt-rotors in the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) (FP5). It was submitted twice without success. In the meantime, a number of critical technology projects were selected in FP5 that address basic R&D topics on tilt rotor technology. Depending on the results and potential arising from ongoing research, there is a possibility that the topic of tilt rotor technology may be included in the work programme for the third call for proposals, foreseen to be published in May 2005, under the Sixth EU Framework Programme for RTD (FP6, 2002-2006). If this possibility is confirmed, an estimated overall budget envelope in the range of EUR 90 to EUR 100 million could be available for this research, up to 50 % coming from the FP6 budget. The European industry is known to be preparing itself in view of this possibility. No specific reference is made to a tilt rotor development in the current version of the FP6 aeronautics work programme.

There is no contract signed in 2002 between the Commission and Agusta and/or Eurocopter. Furthermore, the Commission funds projects dealing with research, technology development and concept validation. Industrial project development is not included among the activities covered by the Framework Programme of the Commission.

As a point of clarification, it is to be noted that ERICA is an industrial feasibility study (not a European project as such) carried out jointly by Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter that investigates a different technological concept from the one BA609 is based upon.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/395 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/395

---

(2004/C 84 E/0458)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/04

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Passive smoking

The Commission has repeatedly stated that passive smoking is a health problem. Much research into the matter has shown that people who are exposed to passive smoking, particularly at work, can suffer serious health problems.

Does the Commission agree that passive smoking is not only a health problem but also a problem associated with the working environment? Will the Commission submit proposals for legislation to protect workers against the health risks caused by smoking in the work-place? If so, how will the Commission proceed and what is the timetable for any such measures?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that environmental tobacco smoke is not only a health problem but also an occupational risk. Studies have shown that regular exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a 25 % increased risk of smoking related diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Several health and safety at work directives have already established restrictions on smoking at work. This is the case of Council Directive 89/654/EEC (1) that mentions that measures must be introduced for the protection of non-smokers against discomfort caused by tobacco smoke, in rest areas and rest rooms. In addition, Council Directive 90/394/EEC (2) provides for the use of ‘non-smoking’ signs in areas where workers are exposed or likely to be exposed to carcinogens. Moreover, Council Directive 92/85/EEC (3) lists carbon monoxide as one of the chemical agents for which the employer should assess the nature, degree and duration of exposure of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. This shall be followed by further action by the employer to ensure that the exposure of these workers to such risk is avoided. Last but not least, Council Directive 89/391/EEC (4) establishes, as an obligation on the employer, possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, including those facing groups of workers exposed to particular risks.

Therefore, passive smoking has already to be considered in risk assessment and appropriate preventive measures implemented. These measures of varying technical and/or organisational nature will depend on the characteristics of the workplace and not necessarily lead to a total ban.

Any Community legislation for further protection of workers against the health risks arising from exposure to tobacco smoke would be based on Article 137 of the EC Treaty.

The choice of the policy instrument for further protection of workers against the health risks arising from exposure to tobacco smoke needs to be considered carefully. Tobacco smoke is considered not only carcinogenic and reprotoxic but also responsible for other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, it would need to be assessed if the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, the ‘Carcinogens Directive’, the ‘Chemical Directive’ and the other Directives mentioned above do not already provide enough protection to workers' health, before any decision on the future course of action is taken.

The European social partners would need to be consulted, under Article 138 of the EC Treaty, before any detailed proposal is put forward by the Commission. They may decide to negotiate an agreement under Article 139. At a later stage, the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work would need to be consulted as well.

In the meantime, the Commission continues to encourage the development of measures at Member State and regional level. At this level, there has been considerable activity recently with Ireland on the verge of becoming the first Member State to introduce smoking bans in bars and restaurants at the end of March 2004. The Swedish Parliament has just announced its intention to pass workplace bans in 2005. Elsewhere, the Spanish Government is looking into the feasibility of a total workplace ban, particularly in bars and restaurants and the United Kingdom Government is consulting on the possibility of moving this decision making to city councils.

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(2)  Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(3)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.

(4)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/397 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/397

---

(2004/C 84 E/0459)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0433/04

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject:   Status of Gaeilige for recruitment to the EU Institutions

The revised Staff Regulation agreed by the Commission on 18 November 2003 amend Article 45 (Promotion), second indent, to state that Officials shall be required to demonstrate before their first promotion after recruitment the ability to work in a third language among those referred to in Article 314 of the EC Treaty'. Article 314 refers to the Treaty languages, including Gaeilge (Irish), and consequently this language will henceforth be given equal consideration with other Community languages for promotion purposes.

Does the Commission admit that an anomaly now arises in that Gaeilge can be considered for promotion purposes but not for recruitment purposes and that a modification of recruitment procedures is required in order to give equal treatment to Gaeilge as regards language requirements for recruitment to the institutions of the Union? How and when does the Commission propose rectifying this situation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The General Affairs and External Relations Council decided on 19 May 2003 that the revised Staff Regulations should permit officials demonstrating a working knowledge of Irish as a third language, to be able to rely on that to assist them in qualifying for their first promotion. For this purpose, when the new Regulations come into force on 1st May 2004, knowledge of Irish will therefore be treated in the same way as the other languages referred to in Article 314 of the EC Treaty — i.e. the languages in which the EC and EU Treaties are written.

On initial appointment, Article 28 of the Staff Regulations requires officials to have ‘a satisfactory knowledge of another language (in addition to the first Community language) of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of his/her duties’. The term ‘Community language’ is not defined in the Staff Regulations, but it has always been interpreted by reference to the ‘official languages and working languages of the Institutions’, as defined in Regulation 1/58.

In the context of the accession negotiations with Ireland in the early 1970's it was agreed by the Council that Gaelic, which is the first official language of Ireland under the Irish Constitution, would be considered as a language of the Treaties and of all acts with Treaty status, but not as an official language of the Community Institutions under Regulation 1/58. Gaelic is therefore not currently accepted as one of the languages necessary for recruitment. If the Irish Government (or any qualified authority) wished to change this position it could, of course, seek to secure the support of the Council for a proposal to make the necessary amendments to EEC Council Regulation 1/58 (1), pursuant to Article 290 EC. To date, the Commission understands that no such formal action has been taken.

The uniqueness of Irish in terms of provisions relating to languages in the Community is evident in the fact that, whilst no Community legislation or formal document is produced in Irish, citizens nonetheless have a right under Article 21 of the EC Treaty to write to any Institution in Irish and to receive a response in the same language. The position of Irish under the revised Staff Regulations which provide for Irish to be considered as a third language for promotion purposes but not as a second language for initial appointment purposes now reflects a similar uniqueness. The Commission does not propose to put forward further amendments to the revised Staff Regulations. Due account would obviously be taken of any change in the Treaty provisions relating to the Irish language and of any implications arising from that.

---

(1)  EEC Council Regulation 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, OJ Β 17, 6.10.1958.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/398

---

(2004/C 84 E/0460)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 0

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 0 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/398

---

(2004/C 84 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 1

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 1 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/398

---

(2004/C 84 E/0462)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 2

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 2 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/399

---

(2004/C 84 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 5

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2007, and reduce both nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions much earlier and more drastically?

What is the Commission's view on this?

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/399

---

(2004/C 84 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 6

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

It would be desirable to introduce these limits before 2012, as the pollution of residential areas and air pollution in general could have escalated considerably by then.

What is the Commission's view on this?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/400

---

(2004/C 84 E/0465)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0439/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   Nitrogen oxide emission limits

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by 30 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2005, and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions even further, by around 40 or 50 %?

What is the Commission's view on this?

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/400

---

(2004/C 84 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0440/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   Particulate emission limits

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, particulate emissions will be reduced by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2005, and eliminate particulate emissions entirely?

What is the Commission's view on this?

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/400

---

(2004/C 84 E/0467)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   Particulate filters

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

In the light of these developments, with emission reductions applying to new vehicles only, can the Commission not introduce a sweeping and compulsory measure to install particulate filters in old, highly polluting vehicles as a transitional solution until 2006?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0434/04, E-0435/04, E-0436/04, E-0437/04, E-0438/04, E-0439/04, E-0440/04 and E-0441/04

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

| 1. | Regarding the application of more recent emission standards to older vehicles and retro-fitting measures:






  — | the presently mandatory or future exhaust emission standards laid down in Directive 1999/96/EC (2) are applicable only to new heavy-duty vehicles for the purposes of type-approval to enable the sale of such new vehicles throughout the EU without hinderance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Regarding the application of more recent emission standards to older vehicles and retro-fitting measures:

—

the presently mandatory or future exhaust emission standards laid down in Directive 1999/96/EC (2) are applicable only to new heavy-duty vehicles for the purposes of type-approval to enable the sale of such new vehicles throughout the EU without hinderance;

| — | the application of EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6 emission standards to older vehicles that were previously type-approved according to the then valid EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 standards is not a simple proposition. One option is retro-fitting, but a EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 vehicle can not be retro-fitted with exhaust treatment equipment to comply with all the pollutant emission limits of EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6. However, a particulate filter may provide a higher level of particulate reduction, possibly to the EURO 3 level or, in the case of a EURO 2 engine, to the EURO 4 level; |
| --- | --- |

—

the application of EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6 emission standards to older vehicles that were previously type-approved according to the then valid EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 standards is not a simple proposition. One option is retro-fitting, but a EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 vehicle can not be retro-fitted with exhaust treatment equipment to comply with all the pollutant emission limits of EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6. However, a particulate filter may provide a higher level of particulate reduction, possibly to the EURO 3 level or, in the case of a EURO 2 engine, to the EURO 4 level;

| — | an older EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 engine may be replaced by a EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6 engine but it depends on the compatibility between the vehicle-chassis and the new engine. However, this is unlikely to be a cost-effective proposition for the operator of a heavy-duty vehicle; |
| --- | --- |

—

an older EURO 0, EURO 1 or EURO 2 engine may be replaced by a EURO 4, EURO 5 or EURO 6 engine but it depends on the compatibility between the vehicle-chassis and the new engine. However, this is unlikely to be a cost-effective proposition for the operator of a heavy-duty vehicle;

| — | replacement or retro-fit requirements are not presently covered by Community legislation and Member States may enact retro-fitting provisions in national law subsequent to notification procedures. It is preferred that retro-fit measures should not be selective with respect to one particular pollutant only but rather aim to promote, in general, the retro-fitting of broadly efficient emission control devices; |
| --- | --- |

—

replacement or retro-fit requirements are not presently covered by Community legislation and Member States may enact retro-fitting provisions in national law subsequent to notification procedures. It is preferred that retro-fit measures should not be selective with respect to one particular pollutant only but rather aim to promote, in general, the retro-fitting of broadly efficient emission control devices;

| — | retro-fitting is a measure being considered in the Commission's Clean Air for Europe program which is due to report on a thematic strategy for reducing air pollution in the first half of 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

retro-fitting is a measure being considered in the Commission's Clean Air for Europe program which is due to report on a thematic strategy for reducing air pollution in the first half of 2005;

| — | the Honourable Member proposes a sweeping requirement to fit all older heavy-duty vehicles with particulate filters. Since such a measure would be addressed at the level of the Member States, the Commission cannot comment on whether Member States would support such an initiative. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Honourable Member proposes a sweeping requirement to fit all older heavy-duty vehicles with particulate filters. Since such a measure would be addressed at the level of the Member States, the Commission cannot comment on whether Member States would support such an initiative.

| 2. | Regarding the bringing forward of already agreed emission standards:






  — | compliance with the EURO 4 stage is mandatory for the entry into service of all new heavy-duty vehicles from 1 October 2006. However, new types of heavy-duty vehicles must meet the EURO 4 requirements from 1 October 2005; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Regarding the bringing forward of already agreed emission standards:

—

compliance with the EURO 4 stage is mandatory for the entry into service of all new heavy-duty vehicles from 1 October 2006. However, new types of heavy-duty vehicles must meet the EURO 4 requirements from 1 October 2005;

| — | the EURO 4 emission limits were agreed in co-decision by the Parliament and the Council. The Commission does not intend to propose a change of the date of application of the EURO 4 stage or reducing further the EURO 4 NOx or particulate emission limits since industry is well on the way to confirming their engine designs and pollutant emission control strategies for the EURO 4 stage. It is too late now to change the goalposts; |
| --- | --- |

—

the EURO 4 emission limits were agreed in co-decision by the Parliament and the Council. The Commission does not intend to propose a change of the date of application of the EURO 4 stage or reducing further the EURO 4 NOx or particulate emission limits since industry is well on the way to confirming their engine designs and pollutant emission control strategies for the EURO 4 stage. It is too late now to change the goalposts;

| — | the EURO 5 emission limits were also agreed in co-decision by the Parliament and the Council. Again, the Commission does not intend to make a proposal to bring forward by one year the date of application of the EURO 5 standards; |
| --- | --- |

—

the EURO 5 emission limits were also agreed in co-decision by the Parliament and the Council. Again, the Commission does not intend to make a proposal to bring forward by one year the date of application of the EURO 5 standards;

| — | the Commission is presently considering the EURO 6 emission limits for heavy-duty vehicles with the focus being on reducing emissions of NOx and total mass of particulates. The Commission is also considering the issue of ultra-fine particles, which are suspected of being a contributory factor to health effects, with regard to the setting of a specific limit value for ultra-fine particle size/number. The necessary new measuring procedures are in preparation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission is presently considering the EURO 6 emission limits for heavy-duty vehicles with the focus being on reducing emissions of NOx and total mass of particulates. The Commission is also considering the issue of ultra-fine particles, which are suspected of being a contributory factor to health effects, with regard to the setting of a specific limit value for ultra-fine particle size/number. The necessary new measuring procedures are in preparation;

| — | the Commission's Clean Air for Europe program will provide the scientific basis for deciding future EURO 6 emission standards in collaboration with balanced measures for other industrial sectors contributing to air pollution in order to achieve future EU air quality targets. Stakeholders are fully consulted in the Clean Air for Europe and EURO 6 process. Today, the Commission estimates that EURO 6 could, if appropriate, be applied in the 2012-2013 timescale giving industry a reasonable period of stability between the EURO 5 and EURO 6 stages. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's Clean Air for Europe program will provide the scientific basis for deciding future EURO 6 emission standards in collaboration with balanced measures for other industrial sectors contributing to air pollution in order to achieve future EU air quality targets. Stakeholders are fully consulted in the Clean Air for Europe and EURO 6 process. Today, the Commission estimates that EURO 6 could, if appropriate, be applied in the 2012-2013 timescale giving industry a reasonable period of stability between the EURO 5 and EURO 6 stages.

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 1999/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles and amending Council Directive 88/77/EEC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/402 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/402

---

(2004/C 84 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Exploitation of Portuguese workers in France

The French and Portuguese media have denounced the unacceptable exploitation, tantamount to full-blown slavery, of Portuguese workers in France, specifically in the Loire-Atlantique region. A complaint has of course already been launched against the IDG (International Deboning Group), which failed to fulfil its job contracts, pay salaries, transport, bonuses, holidays and so on to its Portuguese workers.

What measures have been taken or are going to be taken to protect the rights of Portuguese workers, and to ascertain the responsibility of French public organisations in maintaining these situations of full-blown slavery?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

As the Commission has already pointed out in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3834/03 (1), whether the cases in question come under Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2) or under Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (3) depends primarily on whether their employment in France is permanent. If so, French employment law is applied in full, and discrimination on grounds of nationality is not permitted. If not, the Portuguese workers concerned are covered by a ‘hard core’ of protective rules, set out in the above Directive, on the working and employment conditions in force in France, and the remainder of their working conditions are governed by the law of the country of origin.

Effective monitoring and surveillance of compliance with working and employment conditions are primarily the responsibility of the national authorities and courts, and any specific information which individuals, including the Honourable Member, may have on non-compliance with the relevant working conditions should be submitted to these authorities.

The Commission does not have any reason to doubt that the supervisory measures and sanctions provided for by the legislation of the Member State to which the Honourable Member refers are generally effective and proportionate and act as a deterrent. Nor does it possess any information to suggest that the French authorities are any less diligent in addressing infringements of the obligations arising from Community law than in applying the corresponding purely national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(3)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/403 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/403

---

(2004/C 84 E/0469)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0455/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Illegal fishing — Azores and Madeira

There are media reports that the Spanish authorities have apparently ‘anticipated’ the application of the new Community Regulation (1954/2003 (1)), and liberalise access to half of the Azores and Madeira Economic Exclusion Zone; they have already issued licences for fishing in those waters to at least one Spanish shipowner, in what constitutes a clear violation of the deadlines established.

The same sources believe that this action on Spain's part is a direct assault on Portuguese sovereignty, since liberalisation was scheduled to take place only on 1 August 2004 (Regulation 1954/2003, Article 15), when the currently applicable Regulation is revoked.

The Portuguese radio channel TSF obtained access to a Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries document authorising one shipowner to fish for swordfish and similar species in Azores and Madeiran waters, with the exception of the zone lying between the coast of the two archipelagos and the hundred-mile limit.

These documents were discovered by accident on 16 January 2004.

The Azores authority, whose satellites had already detected 16 Spanish vessels in local waters, have informed the Portuguese Defence Ministry of the discovery of this document, and have requested that surveillance, both by air and by sea, be reinforced.

The media claim that the Portuguese Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for Fisheries, has asked the Commission for its opinion of the Spanish licences for fishing off the Azores and Madeira.

If Spain's precipitate action proves to be illegal, the worst fears concerning the liberalisation of fishing in those waters will be confirmed, and Portuguese public opinion will have fresh cause for alarm.

The Commission:

| — | Is it aware of these facts, and the action of the Spanish authorities? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it aware of these facts, and the action of the Spanish authorities?

| — | How does it view this case and, particularly, the behaviour of the Spanish authorities? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it view this case and, particularly, the behaviour of the Spanish authorities?

| — | What measures has it taken, or will it take, to deal with this situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

What measures has it taken, or will it take, to deal with this situation?

| — | Does it believe that Spain should make reparations to Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it believe that Spain should make reparations to Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is certainly aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member, concerning the presence of Spanish fishing vessels in Azorean waters. There seems, however, to be a certain misunderstanding as regards the applicability of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95. The conditions for fishing activities in the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands are laid down in Article 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation which entered into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (cf. Article 16), i.e. on 14 November 2003. Consequently, the special conditions for fishing in the waters of the Azores and Madeira are applicable from that date onwards. It is up to the national authorities to verify that these rules are followed.

Finally, the Commission is in constant dialogue with the Member States concerned in order to ensure as smooth an application of the new rules as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/404 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/404

---

(2004/C 84 E/0470)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0456/04

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Increase in consumer complaints in Greece

According to a press release (14 January 2004) issued by the ‘Consumers’ Protection Centre (KEPKA), which is based in Thessaloniki and a member of the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) and the Consumers' International, the number of complaints received by the organisation from thousands of Greek consumers increased in 2003 by 40 %. Whereas, in 2002, the organisation received 10 000 complaints, in 2003 the figure rose to 14 000. The main type of complaints concern price rises (15,60 %), credit cards and loans (15,05 %), and faulty goods (10,46 %). The percentage of complaints rose in 2003, particularly in the ‘credit card -loan’ category, by two and a half times compared with 2002 (from 6,68 % to 15,05 %), and in the ‘food unfit for consumption’ category there was almost a doubling (from 4,33 % to 7,5 %). Significantly, complaints against Greek public services more than doubled (from 2,06 % in 2002 to 4,68 % in 2003).

Is the Commission satisfied that Community law adequately protects consumers against such developments? Have all the relevant provisions of Community law in this respect been incorporated into Greek national law and to what extent are they implemented?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Community law contains a set of rules aiming at guaranteeing a high level of protection for consumers throughout the internal market. A broad legal framework has been developed over a period of more than twenty years for both food and non-food consumer products. In the areas mentioned by the Honourable Member, there has been legislation on the indication of prices (Directive 98/6/EC) (1), consumer credit (Directive 87/102/EEC (2) as amended), product liability (Directive 85/374/EEC (3) as amended) as well as numerous directives on food safety. This legislation includes rules on consumer protection. Services of general interest are regulated by sector specific legislation such as directives on postal services, electricity, gas and telecommunications whereas the Public Utilities Directive 93/38/EEC (4), as amended, covers important public services.

Furthermore, the Commission has proposed a Directive on unfair commercial practice(s) (5) to ensure that consumers are adequately protected from rogue traders. The Commission has also undertaken to review and update the consumer acquis communautaire in its Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006 (6).

The increase in the number of consumer complaints in Greece may be taken as a sign that consumers are becoming more aware of their rights. They are turning to consumer organisations for assistance to enforce these rights. The Commission does not consider this as a sign that Community legislation inadequately protects consumers but rather as proof that the awareness of consumer rights is increasing, a development that the Commission strongly supports. In order to further spread information to consumers a European Consumer Centre (EEC) opened in Athens (7, Akadimias Street, GR-10671 Athens) on 7 May 2003.

Greece has transposed all the consumer protection directives related to the issues mentioned outside the area of food safety. It is up to the national authorities in Greece to ensure that EU consumer directives, as transposed into national law, are properly enforced for the benefit of Greek consumers.

In the area of food safety, the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission carried out three inspections to Greece during 2003 and made recommendations to improve the functioning of the official control systems in place and to correct the deficiencies noted. Many of these deficiencies arise as a result of a shortage of staff, and this issue is being actively pursued with the Greek authorities. The reports of these inspections will be made available on the Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection Internet site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/oc_index_en.html) in due course.

---

(1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, OJ L 80, 18.3.1998.

(2)  Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, OJ L 42, 12.2.1987 as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(3)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, OJ L 210, 7.8.1985 as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.

(4)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(5)  COM(2003) 356 final.

(6)  COM(2002) 208 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/405 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/405

---

(2004/C 84 E/0471)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) and Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Avian flu and the ban on poultry from Thailand

Following the outbreak of avian flu in Asia the EU has banned all fresh poultry imports from Thailand. The ban has now been extended to 15 August 2004. The ban does not extend to poultry meats treated to a very high temperature (70 °C). What reassurance can the Commission offer on reducing the risks of infection from cooked Thai poultry available in ‘ready meals’?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

According to international standards provided by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and supported by risk analysis studies conducted in collaboration with the Avian Influenza Community Reference Laboratory these viruses are inactivated at temperatures of at least 60 °C applied for 30 minutes. Commission Decision 97/222/EC (1) for the importation of meat products mitigates the risk of introduction of the different notifiable animal diseases via imports of fresh meat by recognised techniques for disease agent inactivation procedures applied to the product. These procedures are described in the Annex to this decision and the model certificate for such products is laid down in Commission Decision 97/221/EC (2) and has been used for many years.

Therefore the importation of poultry ratites and feather game meat products originating from Thailand that have undergone a treatment according to the methods prescribed by the Annex, part IV, points B, C or D, to Commission Decision 97/222/EC continues to be authorised. The treatments require the product to be heated to at least 70° Celsius throughout, which means in fact that higher temperatures will be reached in the product.

When ‘Ready-meals’ contain meat which still has the characteristics of fresh meat (e.g. they have only been salted, seasoned or rolled in flour and then frozen) they are not considered as meat products, but fall under the definition of meat preparations, which are covered by the current ban.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to control consignments at the Community's border inspection posts on the fulfilment of the Community health standards and to take appropriate actions in case of non conformity to the Community legislation.

The Commission's Taxation and Customs Union Directorate-General (DG) is furthermore closely working with Member States customs administrations to implement in a practical way a co-ordinated approach to risk management across the Community. A recent example is the sharing of information to support controls to enforce the recent ban on poultry products from the infected countries in Asia.

The Commission emphasizes that all measures are supported by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, in which experts of all Member States are represented.

The import of poultry meat from Asia in airports by passengers is banned by Commission Decision 2002/995/EC (3). Under these rules, poultry meat and meat products cannot be introduced into the European Union without conforming to the same health requirements as commercial imports.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 97/222/EC of 28 February 1997 laying down the list of third countries from which the Member States authorise the importation of meat products, OJ L 89, 4.4.1997.

(2)  Commission Decision 97/221/EC of 28 February 1997 laying down the animal health conditions and model veterinary certificates in respect of imports of meat products from third countries and revoking Decision 91/449/EEC, OJ L 89, 4.4.1997.

(3)  Commission Decision 2002/995/EC of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, OJ L 353, 30.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/406 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/406

---

(2004/C 84 E/0472)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/04

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Closure of Thyssen Krupp plants in Terni

The company Thyssen Krupp (TK) has announced the imminent closure of the magnetic steel production plant at the company's Ast factory in Terni, Italy. The closure of the plant will lead to the loss of 900 jobs, with ramifications in terms of employment for Terni's entire steelworking sector. In recent years, TK has received European funding, including funding from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to finance staff training and infrastructure development at the Terni plant.

| 1. | What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to avert the closure of the magnetic steel production plant at Thyssen Krupp's factory in Terni? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to avert the closure of the magnetic steel production plant at Thyssen Krupp's factory in Terni?

| 2. | What guarantees of employment are businesses that receive European funding, from the European Social Fund for example, requested to provide in terms of the training of their own staff and the improvement of company infrastructure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What guarantees of employment are businesses that receive European funding, from the European Social Fund for example, requested to provide in terms of the training of their own staff and the improvement of company infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Questions P-0376/04 by Mrs Sbarbati, P-0388/04 by Mrs Angelilli and P-0445/04 by Mr Mastella (1). In any case, the Commission notes with satisfaction that an agreement appears to have been reached not to close down the installations.

---

(1)  See page 206.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/407 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/407

---

(2004/C 84 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0460/04

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Belgium — European leader in the combating of salmonella enteritidis — pasteurisation of eggs

According to Commissioner Byrne, 160 000 cases of salmonella enteritidis are recorded every year in Europe. The welfare costs involved amount to about EUR 2,8 billion, and at least 200 people actually die as a consequence of eating contaminated eggs.

Consumption of contaminated eggs — including in dishes prepared with eggs — is one of the most significant causes of salmonella enteritidis.

However, equipment which is apparently capable of combating such food contaminations without impairing the nutritional value or the cooking characteristics of the product already exists. An industrial appliance has been developed by Leda Technologies, a Flemish company, which kills off any bacteria in shell eggs without adversely affecting the nutritional value or the composition thereof. The appliance is also able to kill off any bacteria in eggs and cook them. Given that somewhat more than half of the cases of salmonella enteritidis occur in (large-scale) industrial kitchens, it would appear sensible — with a view to protecting public health and reducing welfare costs — to lay down a binding requirement that this technology be used in (large-scale) industrial kitchens.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of this technology, and is it prepared, with a view to protecting public health and reducing welfare costs, to promote the introduction of this technology in (large-scale) industrial kitchens by offering financial incentives? If so, what specific measures has it already taken to that end? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of this technology, developed by the firm LEDA, which seems to be useful particularly in institutional catering. There are no provisions in Community legislation to prevent its use in large-scale or industrial kitchens. However, there are other ways of reducing the risk of salmonella contamination at this stage in the food chain, for example in the use of egg products. In this context, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1) confirmed the principle that food business operators have primary responsibility for the safety of the food they produce.

For this reason, in terms of cofinancing, the Community has favoured a different approach to the prevention of salmonella contamination, aiming to improve the egg industry in the initial stages of the food chain. The new regulations on zoonoses adopted recently by the European Parliament and the Council thus provide for increased salmonella testing in the rearing of laying hens. Improvement programmes for breeding flocks of poultry are already in place in all Member States.

The Commission feels that, with these measures, the risk of people contracting salmonellosis from eating eggs should be significantly reduced in the next few years.

In addition, should Member States wish to provide financial assistance for the use of this technology, such assistance must comply with Community rules on state aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/408 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/408

---

(2004/C 84 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   ‘Brax’ — sackings and relocation

The German ready-to-wear ‘Brax’ factory in Vila Noa de Gaia (Portugal) has closed its doors, throwing 430 people out of work. The workers accuse the company of leaving the process of transferring production to another country where labour is cheaper (Bulgaria and Poland). Portuguese social security and labour minister has publicly stated that this is a case of ‘arbitrary closure and shirking of responsibilities’ [encerramento selvagem e de abandono], and that the Portuguese Government is going to take Brax to court, as well as suggesting that reparations will be sought from the company for misuse of Community funds. The Minister has also announced that he would activate the salary guarantee fund, so that the 430 Brax workers could receive their backpay, and thus not lose their contractual link with the firm, should a new investor be found for the factory.

The Commission:

| — | Is it monitoring this serious situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it monitoring this serious situation?

| — | What is the total amount (and the dates) of the subsidies directly or indirectly originating from Community sources which were granted for the building and equipping of the Brax factory in Portugal, whether these were granted to the firm operating in Portugal or to the possible mother-firm or industrial group? What are the dates and sums of the direct or indirect Community subsidies granted to the group's companies for its factories in the various countries of the European Union (or, earlier, the EEC) and the enlargement countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

What is the total amount (and the dates) of the subsidies directly or indirectly originating from Community sources which were granted for the building and equipping of the Brax factory in Portugal, whether these were granted to the firm operating in Portugal or to the possible mother-firm or industrial group? What are the dates and sums of the direct or indirect Community subsidies granted to the group's companies for its factories in the various countries of the European Union (or, earlier, the EEC) and the enlargement countries?

| — | Has the Commission already taken any measures against Brax in view of the extremely deleterious social and economic impact of the closure of the Vila Nova de Gaia factory? Does the Commission possess any evidence that the company's administration behaved in a fraudulent manner in respect of Community funds? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the Commission already taken any measures against Brax in view of the extremely deleterious social and economic impact of the closure of the Vila Nova de Gaia factory? Does the Commission possess any evidence that the company's administration behaved in a fraudulent manner in respect of Community funds?

| — | Is the Commission in a position to guarantee that since Brax was directly or indirectly granted Community funding in respect of its Portuguese factory, the group will not receive any other Community funds, directly or indirectly, for possible relocation? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission in a position to guarantee that since Brax was directly or indirectly granted Community funding in respect of its Portuguese factory, the group will not receive any other Community funds, directly or indirectly, for possible relocation?

| — | What other measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with regard to this case? |
| --- | --- |

—

What other measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with regard to this case?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0243/04 by Mrs Figueiredo (1).

---

(1)  See page 343.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/409 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/409

---

(2004/C 84 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Mission expenses

What were the mission expenses for (i) Members and (ii) staff of the Commission in respect of their attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg (a) during 2001 and (b) during 2002?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The breakdown of mission expenses necessitated by attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg in 2001 and 2002 and by category was as follows:

| (in euro) |
| --- |
| Year | Category | Total |
| Cabinet staff | Other Commission staff | Members |
| 2001 | 209 245,01 | 340 794,65 | 1 089 143,59 | 1 639 183,25 |
| 2002 | 311 144,85 | 355 632,28 | 1 114 182,32 | 1 780 959,45 |

(in euro)

Year

Category

Total

Cabinet staff

Other Commission staff

Members

2001

209 245,01

340 794,65

1 089 143,59

1 639 183,25

2002

311 144,85

355 632,28

1 114 182,32

1 780 959,45

The above expenses relate to measurable and billed costs of transport, accommodation, meals, and other expenditures such as telephone and fax use for work purposes.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/409 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/409

---

(2004/C 84 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Misuse of the model European disabled person's parking card

In many European towns and cities, the disabled person's parking card exempts disabled persons from parking charges (more accurately, the parking tax). With the introduction of the model European disabled person's parking card, the printing of the related car registration number on the card is no longer permitted, on the grounds that the card should be able to be used as widely as possible by and for disabled persons.

In towns and cities with high parking rates, the possession of a disabled person's card (not bearing a car registration number) is very useful (for the able-bodied as well) for avoiding the payment of parking charges.

Accordingly, there is, in practice, widespread abuse of the card system, and large numbers of cards are stolen from disabled persons' vehicles. The assumption that the cards are being used fraudulently may be supported by the fact that the 27 September 2003 edition of De Telegraaf, a Dutch newspaper, carried an advertisement in which a stolen card was offered for sale. The current computerised systems make it virtually impossible to establish the desired connection between enforcement of the law after a declaration of theft and registration of the stolen cards. As a result, the desired positive effect of the cards, namely assistance for disabled persons, is nullified.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this problem? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

| 2. | With a view to preventing abuse of the system, would the Commission be prepared to authorise the printing on each European disabled person's card of the personal details of the driver of the vehicle, unless the holder of the card expressly declines the opportunity to do so (for example, in the case of a disabled passenger who is obliged to use various cars for travelling)? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With a view to preventing abuse of the system, would the Commission be prepared to authorise the printing on each European disabled person's card of the personal details of the driver of the vehicle, unless the holder of the card expressly declines the opportunity to do so (for example, in the case of a disabled passenger who is obliged to use various cars for travelling)? If not, why not?

| 3. | In the event of its declining to pursue the proposal set out above, is the Commission prepared to investigate alternatives? If so, what might those alternatives be? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event of its declining to pursue the proposal set out above, is the Commission prepared to investigate alternatives? If so, what might those alternatives be?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities (1) recommends that Member States introduce a parking card for people with disabilities and issue it in accordance with the respective national provisions, on the basis of a standardised model.

The Recommendation also provides for mutual recognition of parking cards based on the standardised European model, so that cardholders may benefit from the associated parking facilities available in the Member State in which they happen to be.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission cannot intervene in national legislation. It is up to Member States to introduce mutuai recognition of parking cards in accordance with the national, regional and local laws and regulations (highway code, provisions and arrangements for application) specific to each Member State.

The Commission has not been directly informed of the incident mentioned by the Honourable Member, but it is aware of the situation (theft and resale of parking cards) in several Member States.

It therefore intends to discuss these problems (monitoring activities, also with a view to the enlargement process) with the senior representatives of Member States taking part in the meetings of the High Level Group on Disability Matters, which assists the Commission in this area.

---

(1)  OJ L 167, 12.6.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/410 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/410

---

(2004/C 84 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

I have learned from the www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15 website about a number of instances of discrimination on the grounds of language which manifestly infringe Community legislation on the free movement of workers. More specifically, this involves the ‘native-speaker’ condition applied by EU-funded NGOs, technical support offices and private companies when recruiting staff.

I am aware that the Commission has already set out its views on this issue in several answers to written questions. The fact that the Commission has drawn the attention of its staff to the possibility of notices of vacancy being discriminatory and asked them to take the requisite measures vis-à-vis their contractors is a step in the right direction. What is more, it is encouraging to note that the Commission has emphasised that, where appropriate, it will use the powers conferred on it under Community law to prevent the inclusion of the ‘native-speaker’ condition in notices of vacancy.

However, the parliamentary questions on this issue that have been tabled repeatedly since 2001 clearly demonstrate that the Commission has been making inadequate use of its powers under Community law in order to clamp down definitively on these practices. Accordingly, there is a sharply increasing feeling of resentment at the Commission's passive attitude to the problem inside the European Parliament and across the entire political spectrum.

I should be grateful if the Commission would indicate why, despite the proven infringements of Community law, it has not, to date, used its powers under Community law? On the basis of the provisions of the European Treaty, will the Commission henceforth take firm action to combat any form of language discrimination in notices of vacancy published by organisations which it (co)funds?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/411

---

(2004/C 84 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0538/04

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination in notices of vacancy — ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’

In reply to question E-2226/03 (1), the Commission states that all Commission services have been made aware of possible discriminatory job advertisements and asked to take the necessary steps as regards their contractors. The Commission also states in its reply that it tries to avoid cooperation with organisations which publish job advertisements with a ‘native speaker’ criterion. The Commission goes on to stress that it intends to use its legal powers to fight against the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements.

The European Esperanto Union states that, despite previous warnings from the Commission, discriminatory notices of vacancy are still being published which require candidates to meet such criteria as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speakers’. Copies of the discriminatory notices of vacancy can be found at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the advertising of these vacancies? If so, has the Commission used its legal powers to combat this discriminatory requirement? If so, how? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the advertising of these vacancies? If so, has the Commission used its legal powers to combat this discriminatory requirement? If so, how? If not, why not?

| 2. | What steps will the Commission take to prevent vacancies from being advertised with such requirements as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ in future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps will the Commission take to prevent vacancies from being advertised with such requirements as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ in future?

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 236.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/411

---

(2004/C 84 E/0479)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   EU notices of vacancy for English mother-tongue candidates

A number of technical agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private companies, all of them partially or totally financed by the Commission, have published notices of more than 700 vacant posts in Europe, reserved exclusively for candidates who are ‘English mother-tongue’ or ‘native English speakers’ (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15).

The notices do not state that people with ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ command of English are being sought, but explicitly and exclusively native English speakers.

Can the Commission confirm the existence of such practices and, if so, does it not consider that they constitute an example of discrimination contrary to the provisions of the Treaties?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0475/04, E-0538/04 and E-0710/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint answer to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04 by Mr Dhaene and others (1).

---

(1)  See page 302.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/412 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/412

---

(2004/C 84 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0476/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Subject:   Commission cars

Could the Commission confirm if any cars provided for Commissioners have been involved in road traffic accidents or accidents involving third parties, in the last two years? If so, please provide details.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Since 1 January 2002, the cars placed at the disposal of the Commissioners have been involved in thirteen accidents, one resulting in minor injuries to one person.

Each of those accidents involved third parties, and Commission drivers were presumed to be at fault in eight cases. None of the incidents gave rise to civil or criminal proceedings. 11 of the accidents happened in the Brussels region and 2 in Strasbourg.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/412 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/412

---

(2004/C 84 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Commission Cars

Could the Commission confirm if spouses and families of Commissioners are entitled to use cars provided for the Commissioners?

Are there any instances where such use of a Commission car has taken place?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The Administrative Manual for the Members of the Commission stipulates that:

| | Only Commission drivers and Commission members are authorised to drive an official car. |
| --- | --- |

Only Commission drivers and Commission members are authorised to drive an official car.

This Manual further provides that:

| | Drivers must not be asked to provide services for private purposes where this creates overtime or involves the driver in mission expenses, except where there are security grounds for so doing. Where such grounds do not apply, the Member of the Commission may drive his official vehicle himself, particularly on non-working days. |
| --- | --- |

Drivers must not be asked to provide services for private purposes where this creates overtime or involves the driver in mission expenses, except where there are security grounds for so doing. Where such grounds do not apply, the Member of the Commission may drive his official vehicle himself, particularly on non-working days.

To date, no instances where service cars were used in breach of these rules have been established.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/413 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/413

---

(2004/C 84 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Commission open competitions

Following a recent article in Le Figaro regarding the case of Jean-Louis Gibault, a French citizen who took the Commission's open competition in the field of external relations and management of aid to non-member countries:

| — | Could the Commission give details of why he scored 19,5 for the oral test and thus failed in his application? |
| --- | --- |

—

Could the Commission give details of why he scored 19,5 for the oral test and thus failed in his application?

| — | Why was the motivation for this mark not revealed to the applicant despite numerous requests? |
| --- | --- |

—

Why was the motivation for this mark not revealed to the applicant despite numerous requests?

| — | Is the Commission involved in legal proceedings with Mr Gibault? If so please give details of the date of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission involved in legal proceedings with Mr Gibault? If so please give details of the date of the case.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The notice of the competition referred to by the Honourable Member in his question stipulated a pass-mark of 20 points out of a total of 40 points. The applicant referred to in the Honourable Member's question achieved a mark of 19,50. Failure to reach the stipulated passmark is obviously a legitimate reason for excluding a candidate.

Mr Gibault was informed of his marks. A series of precedents from the Court of Justice confirms that the act of communicating the marks to the candidate is a sufficient explanation for the selection board's decision.

Article 6 of annex III of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities stipulates that the work of the selection board is secret. The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have repeatedly upheld the need to safeguard the confidentiality of the deliberations of selection boards in order to guarantee their independence, the objectivity of their work, and to protect them from any outside pressure or interference. This has been confirmed in the judgement of the Court of Justice of 4 July 1996 in case C-254/95 P, Parliament v. Innamorati and in the judgements of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2003 in case T-33/00, Martínez Páramo and others v. Commission, of 25 June 2003 in case T-72/01 Pyres v. Commission and of 23 January 2004 in case T-53/00, Angioli v. Commission.

Mr Gibault has contested his exclusion and is seeking the annulment of the open competition, or at least the decision of the selection board, under case T/294/03. The case was lodged on 25 August 2003 and is still pending.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/414 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/414

---

(2004/C 84 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0490/04

by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Imprisonment of the Pakistani journalist Khawar Mehdi Rizvi who was arrested in Karachi on 14 December 2003 together with the French journalists Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau who wrote for ‘L'Express’ magazine

On 14 December 2003, the Pakistani journalist Khawar Mehdi Rizvi was arrested in Karachi together with the French journalists Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau, reporters for the French magazine ‘L'Express’. After being held in custody for several days, the European journalists were released, while Khawar Mehdi Rizvi was kept in custody and charged with offences carrying heavy sentences, including life imprisonment.

The charges brought by the Quetta Police Criminal Department accuse Khawar Mehdi Rizvi of having accepted money from Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau, reporters for the French Magazine L'Express, to fabricate a report on a Taliban commander and a Taliban training camp. Khawar Mehdi Rizvi is accused of various crimes: ‘conspiracy’, ‘sedition’, ‘harming the international reputation of Pakistan’ and ‘promoting hatred between Pakistan and a neighbouring country and the international community, and between Islam and other religions’. These accusations are not based on any material evidence. Indeed, the two French journalists from ‘L'Express’ involved in the same incident were simply fined.

The American Ambassador to Pakistan has made representation to the Islamabad Government, voiving his concern at Khawar Mehdi Rizvi's treatment. The Khawar Mehdi Rizvi International Support Committee consists of Pakistani journalists and reporters from the French media organisations France 2, TF1, ‘Le Monde’, ‘Libération’ and ‘L'Express’, from the American newspapers The New York Times' and the ‘Chicago Tribune’, as well as from Reporters sans frontières.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to facilitate the release of Khawar Mehdi Rizvi?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Following his arrest Mr Rizvi was held in secret detention for more than four weeks. Yet, since the police publicly announced his detention on 24 January 2004, the normal judicial procedures have been re-established with the filing of a First Information Report. Mr Rizvi has been charged with sedition under Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. He is now under judicial custody and the procedures are ongoing.

Section 124-A of the Penal code is in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 19 of which authorises restrictions to the freedom of the speech ‘in the interest of [...] the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relationship with foreign states [...]’.

Although it is deplorable that Mr Rizvi disappeared without trace for some time after his arrest, the Judiciary does, in principle, not seem to have acted in a discriminatory way towards him. It should be pointed out, however, that the two French journalists were arrested, tried and sentenced under charges of non-compliance with visa limitations under Section 4(a) of the Foreigners Act, whereas Mr Rizvi is confronted with the much more serious charge of sedition, which could result in life imprisonment. This does give the impression that Rizvi alone is suffering the most serious consequences for what clearly was a misguided approach by the entire group of journalists.

The Court has not yet ruled on Mr Rizvi's case and the Commission does under normal circumstances not wish to interfere with an ongoing process of justice. Nevertheless, the Commissioner in charge of External Relations raised the issue during the recent Ministerial Troika meeting in Islamabad on 18 February 2004, calling for clemency in the treatment of Mr Rizvi. We also understand that Heads of Mission in Islamabad will continue to monitor developments and that it is planned to bring up Mr Rizvi's case in future contacts with the Pakistan authorities.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/415 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/415

---

(2004/C 84 E/0484)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0494/04

by Carlos Carnero Gonzalez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Exemption from the environmental impact assessment by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain, for work on the M30 motorway

In the Official Journal of the European Communities, the City of Madrid announced the launch of work in June 2004 on 22 sites on the M30 at a cost of EUR 3 500 million. This 32-kilometre-long motorway, with an average daily traffic volume of more than 200 000 vehicles, passes through an area that is environmentally sensitive (Directive 97/1l/CE (1)), owing to its population density and high concentration of pollution. The plans for these roadworks are being drawn up without any overall study into the environmental aspects and without carrying out an environmental impact assessment, which the Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid seems to view as unnecessary, given that it is negotiating an exemption.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? Does it intend to request information from the competent authorities in Spain? Does it consider that the exemption of the works from an environmental impact report is in compliance with Community law? What measures does it intend to take to ensure that Community law is observed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to proposed works on the M30 motorway in Madrid and asks whether these can be exempted from environmental impact assessment (EIA) by the Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (the EIA Directive) deals with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects and provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of their environmental effects. The EIA Directive contains two Annexes. Project types such as motorways are found in Annex I for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. Other roads or changes or extension of existing motorways fall under Annex II which leaves the Member States and their competent authorities to determine whether an EIA is required. The determination must be based on criteria specified in the Directive. EIA is required if the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Article 2(3) permits Member States to exempt specific projects in whole or in part from EIA but only in exceptional circumstances and provided they inform the Commission in advance and comply with certain other requirements.

As the project is not the subject of Community co-financing, the Commission was not aware of the issue brought to its attention by the Honourable Member. It will, therefore, write to the Spanish authorities in order to ask for information on this matter and to enable it to assess the situation.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/416 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/416

---

(2004/C 84 E/0485)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries

The Commission's reply to our Question E-2188/03 (1) as to possible discrimination against pregnant women by the Spanish Labour Ministry when granting working bursaries acknowledge that there was a possible infringement of Community law on equality of treatment for men and women, and stated that the Commission would investigate.

What stage has this investigation reached, and if the Spanish authorities have responded, in what terms have they done so?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

In the reply to Written Question number E-2188/03, the Honourable Members asked if the Commission considered that the regulations governing the award of grants by the Institute for Women complies with Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2).

The Commission is following up this issue. It will be in contact with the Honourable Members in relation to this issue when the matter has been fully investigated.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 232.

(2)  OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/416 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/416

---

(2004/C 84 E/0486)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain

In answer to Anna Terrón's Question E-4005/03 (1), the Commission refers her to a reply given to myself (P-3911/03) (1), which refers to discrimination against foreign minors, and therefore has nothing to do with the situation facing Community minors.

Every Member State national enjoys European Union citizenship, and all discrimination on grounds of nationality is banned by the Treaties and the Draft European Constitution (Articles 4 and 8).

Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in culture life and the arts, and states that countries shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights lays down the right of minors to protection and to the care necessary for their wellbeing.

In Spain there are serious cases of discrimination against children with regard to their access to sporting leagues, in terms of administrative red tape or the refusal of the Sports Federations to allow them to join, although they are Community citizens.

What is the Commission's view of the refusal of Spanish sporting federations to allow children who are nationals of EU Member States to join, thus preventing them from practising their chosen sports?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The concept of citizenship, which is enshrined in Article 17 of the EC Treaty, has helped to extend and consolidate equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality (2).

As already mentioned in several of its answers (3), the Commission feels that a sporting association regulation which limits the number of amateur players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded could be contrary to Community law, notably Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (4).

The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Member and is currently examining various cases involving European citizens practising amateur sport in Member States other than their Member State of origin. In order to ensure equal treatment, the regulations of sporting federations in all Member States are being examined for compatibility with the principle of non-discrimination.

However, the role given to the federations by the public authorities varies greatly from one country to another, which could make it difficult to attribute the disputed sporting regulations to certain Member States.

Once it has examined these regulations, the Commission will announce what steps are to be taken if it finds that discrimination that is incompatible with Community law is taking place.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  See CJEC judgment of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C-184/99, ECR, I-6193.

(3)  See answer to Written Question E-2621/99 by Mr Sánchez García, OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(4)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/417 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/417

---

(2004/C 84 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/04

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC

The adoption of European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC (1) of 16 February 1998, whose purpose was to facilitate the permanent exercise of the profession of lawyer in an EU Member State other than that in which the lawyer had acquired his or her qualifications, aroused great expectations. In many cases these have been severely disappointed.

Several Member States have put maximum red tape in the way of the effective application of the Directive, since following transposition into national law, the lawyers' colleges of various countries have raised numerous obstacles to the establishment of lawyers from other Member States, particularly with the excuse that the lawyer does not know the official language of the host country, something which with regard to certain countries, such as Luxembourg, really constitutes a barrier which is extremely difficult to overcome.

Does the Commission believe that the fact that someone does not speak a national language such as Luxembourgish, for example, is a reason for that Member State to refuse to enter a lawyer from another Member State in the country's College of Lawyers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The lack of knowledge of an official language of the host Member State for the establishment of lawyers under their home-country professional title poses a problem with regard to Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained. Besides, practise in that State under a home-country professional title ensures that consumers are properly informed (2).

In the case of Luxembourg, the Commission asked it so submit its comments on this requirement. Luxembourg's reply is being examined in order to determine what action should be taken in this case. The Commission will certainly inform the Honourable Member of any action taken.

The Commission has no knowledge of similar requirements in other Member States, but is prepared to examine any information the Honourable Member might submit concerning this matter or any other obstacles.

---

(1)  OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36.

(2)  As pointed out in recital 9.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/418 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/418

---

(2004/C 84 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Incineration of meat-and-bone meal

Various European media have recently reported on uncertainties about the incineration of meat-and-bone meal in Spain in 2003. According to official government figures, 400 000 tons of meat-and-bone meal was disposed of by means of incineration. According to the Spanish organisation representing operators of incinerators, however, the figure was only 40 000 tons.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this issue? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this issue?

| 2. | Will the Commission call on Spain to explain the 360 000 ton discrepancy? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission call on Spain to explain the 360 000 ton discrepancy? If not, why not?

| 3. | Will the Commission take measures to protect the health of European consumers and prevent this meat-and-bone meal from entering the food chain, in accordance with the current ban on feeding livestock with meat-and-bone meal? If so, what measures? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission take measures to protect the health of European consumers and prevent this meat-and-bone meal from entering the food chain, in accordance with the current ban on feeding livestock with meat-and-bone meal? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States on 29 March 2001 asking for details of current disposal routes, the amount of animal by-products disposed of via each route and the disposal costs. As a result of the questionnaire the Commission issued a: ‘Commission services paper on the processing, disposal and uses of animal by-products in Member States’ (1).

The Spanish authorities indicated that there was an estimate annual output of just less than 400 000 tonnes of processed animal protein, part of which was stored in Spain and part was sent to other Member States as trade, for incineration, co-incineration or petfood. Burial in landfill sites and use as fertilisers on land were also possible disposal routes, as well as transformation in biogas and composting plants to produce biogas and biofertiliser/compost. The reply did not give a breakdown of the figures.

Figures from the industry revealed that just over 8 000 tonnes of meat and bone meal were being sent for incineration, and that there was a lack of incineration capacity in Spain.

The above disposal outlets used in Spain are in line with the current Community health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (2), and do not contravene the provisions of the current feed ban in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3).

---

(1)  MEMO/01/378 of 20.11.2001.

(2)  OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(3)  OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/419 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/419

---

(2004/C 84 E/0489)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Use of meat-and-bone meal in animal feed

In the European Union, the use of meat-and-bone meal as animal feed is banned, even if it is derived from healthy animals.

| 1. | In 2004, do the grounds on which the ban was originally based still apply, even in the case of feed for omnivores? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In 2004, do the grounds on which the ban was originally based still apply, even in the case of feed for omnivores?

| 2. | Can the Commission guarantee that animal products exported to the Community from third countries are not derived from animals which have been fed with meat-and-bone meal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission guarantee that animal products exported to the Community from third countries are not derived from animals which have been fed with meat-and-bone meal?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is negative, does this constitute fair competition? Is the Commission concerned about the possible impact on public health in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is negative, does this constitute fair competition? Is the Commission concerned about the possible impact on public health in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

| 1. | The high number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases arising after the introduction of a prohibition against using mammalian proteins in feed intended for ruminants in 1994 indicated a significant degree of contamination between ruminant feed and feed intended for other species and containing these proteins. Therefore, a prohibition on the use of animal proteins in the feeding of all farmed animals was necessary.
  It has also proved necessary to ban the use of non-ruminant protein in feed for control reasons. In particular, analytical methods to differentiate ruminant from non-ruminant proteins in feed are not available. Therefore, if non-ruminant proteins are being used in feed, it is not possible to detect the presence of potentially infected ruminant proteins. The current extended feed ban can only be reconsidered when methods detecting heat treated species specific proteins are validated. Such methods are currently not available and therefore the arguments to keep the extended feed ban are still applicable. The Commission continues to provide financial resources to support research on such methods (Stratfeed project, ring trials in 2003 and 2004). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The high number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases arising after the introduction of a prohibition against using mammalian proteins in feed intended for ruminants in 1994 indicated a significant degree of contamination between ruminant feed and feed intended for other species and containing these proteins. Therefore, a prohibition on the use of animal proteins in the feeding of all farmed animals was necessary.

It has also proved necessary to ban the use of non-ruminant protein in feed for control reasons. In particular, analytical methods to differentiate ruminant from non-ruminant proteins in feed are not available. Therefore, if non-ruminant proteins are being used in feed, it is not possible to detect the presence of potentially infected ruminant proteins. The current extended feed ban can only be reconsidered when methods detecting heat treated species specific proteins are validated. Such methods are currently not available and therefore the arguments to keep the extended feed ban are still applicable. The Commission continues to provide financial resources to support research on such methods (Stratfeed project, ring trials in 2003 and 2004).

| 2. | The import of animal products derived from animals fed with animal proteins in third countries is not prohibited. This is because the prohibition to use processed animal proteins in feed for non-ruminants is a control measure aimed at preventing the spread of BSE to ruminants in the EU. Meat from non-ruminants having been fed processed animal proteins is not considered to be a human health risk. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The import of animal products derived from animals fed with animal proteins in third countries is not prohibited. This is because the prohibition to use processed animal proteins in feed for non-ruminants is a control measure aimed at preventing the spread of BSE to ruminants in the EU. Meat from non-ruminants having been fed processed animal proteins is not considered to be a human health risk.

| 3. | The most important measure to protect consumers' health against BSE is the removal of specified BSE risk material, such as brain and spinal cord, from food. These measures apply equally to Member States and third countries. The aim of the feed ban is to eradicate BSE, which has had serious economic consequences for the whole EU. Disease eradication measures may need to be applied differently in different countries depending on the disease situation, without this necessarily being seen as unequal competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The most important measure to protect consumers' health against BSE is the removal of specified BSE risk material, such as brain and spinal cord, from food. These measures apply equally to Member States and third countries. The aim of the feed ban is to eradicate BSE, which has had serious economic consequences for the whole EU. Disease eradication measures may need to be applied differently in different countries depending on the disease situation, without this necessarily being seen as unequal competition.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/420 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/420

---

(2004/C 84 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Outermost regions

According to media reports the European Commissioner responsible for regional policy, speaking at a conference of EU officials from the outermost regions which took place on 28 January 2004 in Brussels, issued a warning that those regions were likely to lose influence once the Union was enlarged to take in a further 10 members.

This is a highly disturbing view and it must be taken as a basis for adopting more intensive and more effective compensatory measures.

According to the same source the Commission is to respond by proposing the establishment of a ‘specific competitiveness programme’ worth EUR 1 billion to be added to the existing structural funds. This will enable regional policy to be implemented consistently with a view to fostering sustainable development in the outermost regions, depending on each region's shortcomings and degree of economic backwardness.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | What action does the Commission think should be taken by and within each region in order to prevent or reduce a region's loss of influence? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action does the Commission think should be taken by and within each region in order to prevent or reduce a region's loss of influence?

| — | Can it say which sectors will mainly be involved in the programme? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can it say which sectors will mainly be involved in the programme?

| — | How does it intend to apportion the available funding in both percentage and absolute terms? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it intend to apportion the available funding in both percentage and absolute terms?

| — | Does it consider that, in view of the repeatedly stated intention to give priority to achieving genuine convergence between the regions, the programme in question is sufficient not only to prevent divergence but also to ensure that the outermost regions are brought up to the EU average in terms of living standards and quality of life? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it consider that, in view of the repeatedly stated intention to give priority to achieving genuine convergence between the regions, the programme in question is sufficient not only to prevent divergence but also to ensure that the outermost regions are brought up to the EU average in terms of living standards and quality of life?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

On 18 February the Commission adopted the Third report on economic and social cohesion. This specifically indicates the strategy for the outermost regions:

The Commission intends, within the convergence objective, to set up a specific programme to compensate for the specific constraints of the outermost regions, as recognised by Article 299.2 of the Treaty and requested by the European Council of 21/22 June 2002 in Seville. In addition, an action ‘Grand Voisinage’ aimed at facilitating cooperation with the neighbouring countries would be included under the new ‘European territorial cooperation’ programmes. In accordance with the request of the Council, the Commission will shortly present a report on an overall strategy for the outermost regions.

The outermost regions as defined under Article 299 of the Treaty that would not be covered by the new convergence objective would also benefit from a specific transitional State aid regime setting limits on aid that would be comparable, initially, to those defined under Article 87.3(a), followed by a gradual reduction.

We are now preparing the report on an overall strategy mentioned above.

Due for adoption in the immediate future, it sets out to reply to the very questions the Honourable Member puts.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/421 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/421

---

(2004/C 84 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0515/04

by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Scientific and technical opinions for management of Community fisheries

The Carlos Lage report (A5-0023/2004) tabled in the EP plenary on 10 February 2004 raises the important issue of the reliability of the scientific opinions used for fisheries management, given the frequent disagreements between scientists and fishermen over the state of fish stocks. EU measures based on the available scientific opinions can have severe social and economic consequences for fishing communities, and it is therefore necessary to be aware of the importance of the matter and the need to improve the quality of the opinions.

Carlos Lage's warning comes at a timely moment, coinciding with the need for the Community to ground the common fisheries policy in scientific opinions that are of higher quality and more relevant characteristics. This will allow a more scientific basis than hitherto.

The ‘apparent unwillingness’ on the Commission's part identified by Carlos Lage cannot be allowed to continue: the Commission seems unwilling to take proper account of the various scientific opinions available, and thus runs the risk of appearing biased in its decisions, which as a rule tend to be unfavourable to the already highly vulnerable fishing communities.

Is the Commission willing to respond positively to Parliament's position, as now adopted, and submit divergent scientific opinions to a higher scientific body with a view to resolving their contradictions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission bases its proposals for the management of fisheries on scientific advice provided by international bodies, notably the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The working groups of ICES that assess the state of the stocks are made up of scientists from the Community Member States concerned, as well as countries with shared interests in the stocks, such as Norway, Russia and Iceland.

These many scientists bring to ICES all the available data collected by their respective countries, including any information that has been provided by fishermen. The assessments done by these scientists represent their consensus opinion on the state of the stocks. The assessments are reviewed by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management (ACFM) before being released by ICES. The advice of the ACFM is further scrutinised by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

The Commission therefore considers that diverging data and interpretations are already taken into account, and whilst the Commission agrees that greater transparency in the methods used by ICES is desirable for the purposes of debate, it is not clear what superior scientific body could be asked to resolve any contradictory views concerning its advice.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/421 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/421

---

(2004/C 84 E/0492)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0524/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   The Constitution

Can the Commission confirm that, if a Member State were to divide as a result of a region democratically gaining independence, that the precedent set by Algeria would apply?

Can the Commission explain what exactly happened in the Algeria case?

Could the Commission confirm whether a newly independent region would have to leave the EU and then apply for accession afresh?

Would an application of this type require a renegotiation of the treaties at an IGC and the unanimous agreement of the 25 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The European Communities and the European Union have been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The treaties apply to the Member States (Article 299 of the EC Treaty). When a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the Union. An application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/422 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/422

---

(2004/C 84 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/04

by Bernd Lange (PSE), Karin Scheele (PSE) and Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Euronorm standards and particulates emitted from diesel vehicles

Under Community law, vehicle emissions of diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides harmful to health are subject to limits. The EURO 4 limit for automobiles will apply from 2005. Limits regarding harmful emissions from heavy goods vehicles will also be reduced, being subject to EURO 4 standards from 2005 and EURO 5 standards from 2008. Evidence of damage to health caused by particulates is contained in a number of international long-term studies. Now that further reduction of particulate emissions is technically possible, the time is ripe for the introduction of additional limits.

In the interests of health and to enable the automobile industry to plan ahead effectively, the situation should be clarified as soon as possible regarding the EURO 5 automobile limit and EURO 6 heavy goods vehicle limit.

| 1. | Can the Commission submit a recommended EURO 5 limit for automobiles by 1 June 2004 so that new stricter limits for particulates and nitrogen oxides can be made binding by 2010 at the latest? Is it also in a position to recommend EURO 6 exhaust limits for heavy goods vehicles in 2004?
  Can the Commission ensure that vehicle exhaust legislation includes provisions which reliably limit emissions outside the test cycles (off-cycle emissions)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission submit a recommended EURO 5 limit for automobiles by 1 June 2004 so that new stricter limits for particulates and nitrogen oxides can be made binding by 2010 at the latest? Is it also in a position to recommend EURO 6 exhaust limits for heavy goods vehicles in 2004?

Can the Commission ensure that vehicle exhaust legislation includes provisions which reliably limit emissions outside the test cycles (off-cycle emissions)?

| 2. | Is the Commission prepared to include in its proposal provisions allowing Member States to provide tax incentives or compensation to encourage a switch to ‘clean’ vehicles? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission prepared to include in its proposal provisions allowing Member States to provide tax incentives or compensation to encourage a switch to ‘clean’ vehicles?

| 3. | What are the Commission's plans regarding new standardised measuring methods for the definition of the limit values of particulate emissions from diesel vehicles (taking account of the number, size and mass of the particules)?
  To what extend does the Commission consider it possible to introduce incentive schemes for the fitting of particle filters to diesel vehicles already in circulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What are the Commission's plans regarding new standardised measuring methods for the definition of the limit values of particulate emissions from diesel vehicles (taking account of the number, size and mass of the particules)?

To what extend does the Commission consider it possible to introduce incentive schemes for the fitting of particle filters to diesel vehicles already in circulation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is working on a proposal for EURO 5 for passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles that will, if appropriate, set the mandatory pollutant emission limits for such new vehicles around 2010. However, the Commission will not be able to make a proposal to the Parliament and to the Council by 1 June 2004 as that would require a separate impact assessment. A EURO 5 proposal is included in the Commission's Clean Air for Europe thematic strategy which foresees a EURO 5 proposal in mid-2005. In addition, the Commission is also working on a proposal for EURO 6 for heavy-duty vehicles that will, if appropriate, set the mandatory pollutant emission limits for such new vehicles around the 2012-2013 timeframe. Again, under the Clean Air for Europe thematic strategy, a EURO 6 proposal is foreseen later in 2005.

The existing Directives covering emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (1) and heavy-duty vehicles (2) already prohibit the use of defeat devices that can modulate engine performance at the expense of pollutant emissions under any operating conditions. Such measures will be strengthened in future legislation and probably be based on international work looking towards global harmonisation in this area. The Commission is also working on the development of a new procedure for heavy-duty vehicles using portable emission measuring systems (PEMS) that will allow for the testing of emissions of heavy-duty vehicles under real operating conditions on the road, not tested as at present in laboratories over specific test cycles. The Commission believes that the PEMS approach will provide an improved legislative tool in the future.

Future proposals may continue to lay down the framework for the granting of tax incentives by the Member States to encourage manufacturers to produce vehicles meeting future standards before the standards become mandatory.

The Commission is looking at the possibility to introduce controls on ultra-fine particle size and/or number in EURO 5 for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles and in EURO 6 for heavy-duty vehicles. The new measurement procedures are being finalised in a working group of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE).

Promotional programmes for replacing older vehicles with newer engines or retro-fitting exhaust treatment devices such as particle filters are not covered in existing Commission legislation. However, the Clean Air for Europe programme is considering such measures amongst the options it is investigating. Presently, Member States may enact promotional programmes for retro-fitting in national law subject to notification procedures.

---

(1)  Council Directive 70/220/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by gases from positive-ignition engines of motor vehicles, OJ L 76, 6.4.1970 as last amended by Commission Directive 2003/76/EC of 11 August 2003 amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC, OJ L 206, 15.8.2003.

(2)  Council Directive 88/77/EEC of 3 December 1987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous pollutants from diesel engines for use in vehicles, OJ L 36, 9.2.1988 as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/27/EC of 10 April 2001 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 88/77/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive-ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles, OJ L 107, 18.4.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/424 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/424

---

(2004/C 84 E/0494)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0531/04

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Construction of a salt-water spa and discharge of thermal salt water from the spa into the River Spree without an environmental impact assessment

A salt-water spa is to be built in the town of Burg in Land Brandenburg, Germany. The plans provide for the thermal salt water from the spa to be discharged directly into the River Spree. As a result, the water quality of the river will deteriorate. Current technology involves compressing and depositing the salt. However, discharging it into the water has been approved without a prior environmental impact assessment. Brandenburg's regional government intends to finance the project using EU funding from the ERDF.

| 1. | Is the Commission of the opinion that an envrionmental impact assessment was required in the above case under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (1))?
  If so, does the Commission intend to call on Brandenburg's regional government to comply with EU law?
  If not, how does the Commission intend to guarantee the implementation of and compliance with the EU's Water Framework Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission of the opinion that an envrionmental impact assessment was required in the above case under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (1))?

If so, does the Commission intend to call on Brandenburg's regional government to comply with EU law?

If not, how does the Commission intend to guarantee the implementation of and compliance with the EU's Water Framework Directive?

| 2. | Is the Commission of the opinion that it is compatible with the principles of the Structural Funds as set out in Article 12 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2)) that the construction of a salt-water spa in Burg can be directly supported, or its development indirectly supported, by the ERDF despite the failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive?
  If so, how does it justify this?
  If not, will it call on Brandenburg to repay the funds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission of the opinion that it is compatible with the principles of the Structural Funds as set out in Article 12 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2)) that the construction of a salt-water spa in Burg can be directly supported, or its development indirectly supported, by the ERDF despite the failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive?

If so, how does it justify this?

If not, will it call on Brandenburg to repay the funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Many of the provisions in the Water Framework Directive (3) are not yet operational. As regards discharges, the Water Framework Directive regulates, inter alia, that point source discharges liable to cause pollution must be subject to prior regulation or authorisation by December 2009 at the latest (cf. Article 11 (3g)). In this respect, the Directive does not require an environmental impact assessment sensu Council Directive 85/337/EEC (4) as amended by Directive 97/ll/EC (5). However, the principles and objectives of the Water Framework Directive must be considered by the competent authority when issuing such a permit.

Moreover, Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC on environmental impact assessment is not applicable in this case.

Although the obligation of prior authorisation under the Water Framework Directive would not be applicable in this case, existing Community legislation such as Directive 76/464/EEC (6) provides for similar obligations. However, based on the information available to it, the Commission has no reason to suspect that the authorisation issued by the authorities contradicts this Directive.

In consequence, no incompatibility with Article 12 of the Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (7) could be seen and therefore no payment interruption or repayment of funds is foreseen.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(3)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

(4)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(6)  Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/425 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/425

---

(2004/C 84 E/0495)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0532/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Nuclear submarines docked at Santo Stefano Island, Sardinia

US Navy nuclear submarines are docked at the base on Santo Stefano Island, in the La Maddalena archipelago, in Sardinia. Recently, an incident with potential radioactive effects was recorded. In Sardinia and Corsica, several movements have been alerting the authorities to the potential danger of nuclear pollution in the area.

Has the Italian Government informed the European Commission about the presence of nuclear submarines at Santo Stefano Island, as required by Article 37 of the Euratom Directive on Crossborder Effects? If not, what measures will the Commission take?

Does the Commission consider that Santo Stefano Island fulfils all the conditions required for the accommodation of nuclear submarines?

Under Directive 89/618/Euratom (1), Member States are required to ensure that the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological emergency is given information about the health-protection measures applicable to it and about the action it should take in the event of such an emergency. Can the Commission indicate where this obligation is being fulfilled by the Member State involved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission has received no information from the Italian government on the presence of nuclear submarines at Santo Stefano Island.

Under Article 3 7 of the Euratom Treaty, each Member State must inform the Commission of any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste which could result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Discharges under normal conditions due to the operation of the propulsion reactor of the miliary nuclear submarine in question are the responsibility of the United States which is the State responsible for the authorisation and operation of the submarine and its components, but is not subject to the provisions in Article 37.

As regards emergency measures within the meaning of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the Commission takes the view that the Directive applies equally to ionising radiation arising from the use of nuclear energy for miliary purposes, including submarine propulsion reactors.

Italy has adopted measures transposing the abovementioned Directive which provide for ‘external emergency’ plans for military port installations, the implementation and diffusion of which is the responsibility of the provincial authority.

The Commission is currently assessing the conformity of the national legislation with the provisions in Directive 89/618/Euratom, particularly with regard to public access to information on emergency measures.

The Commission has received no complaints following the incident in question, and according to information provided by the Italian environmental protection authority (APAT), no indication of radioactive contamination was found when monitoring the water and the air following the incident described by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/426 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/426

---

(2004/C 84 E/0496)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0535/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Recognition of disability status across the European Union

In the interests of promoting the free movement of persons with disabilities such as blindness, can the Commission advise on the current situation regarding the recognition of blindness and other disability certification from one Member State in other parts of the Community?

What steps are being taken towards harmonising criteria, certification and categorisation of disability to allow citizens moving between Member States to qualify for the same health and social welfare status across the EU without undergoing further testing?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The decision concerning the definition of disability as well as the modalities for assessment and certification (disability cards) are taken at national level. The situation is complicated by the fact that often several definitions exist at national level, depending in which context the definition is used. There is no general mutual recognition of certification/disability cards or a certain disability status entitling holders to the various concessions available in Member States other than the one that issued the card.

It should nevertheless be mentioned that for individual purposes (access to special services, reductions for travel or entry to cultural sites, etc.) a document issued in another Member State might be recognised. Moreover, through the voluntary system of blue parking cards initiated by the Commission, which gives entitlement to special parking concessions for those entitled under national rules, there is — in this particular case — general mutual recognition of the blue parking cards issued in one Member State and used in another.

The Commission has recently commissioned and published a study, ‘Definitions of Disability in Europe: A comparative Analysis’ (1), that will be presented for discussion to the Member States at one of the next meetings of the High Level Group Disability.

---

(1)  The study can be downloaded from the following Website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/index/7002_en.html

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/427 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/427

---

(2004/C 84 E/0497)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   The role of Esperanto in maintaining language equality efficiently

During the debate on the Prets report (A5-0477/2003) which took place in Strasbourg on 13 January 2004, Mrs Viviane Reding, Commissioner, said that ‘ ... multilingualism includes languages which are not official ones, but certainly not Esperanto, since we have enough living languages which are in difficulty without creating artificial ones alongside them.’

Over the last 115 years, millions of people have learnt Esperanto, which is now a fully developed language, with a worldwide community of speakers and a full range of forms of expression, for which reason there is no question of ‘creating’ a new language, least of all an ‘artificial’ one.

At the 1954 Unesco General Conference it was acknowledged that Esperanto reflects Unesco's ideals and objectives. At the 1985 Unesco General Conference a call was issued to the Member States and to international organisations, requesting them to promote the teaching of Esperanto in schools and the use thereof in international affairs.

In Europe, English is an immensely powerful language, dominating both the market in cultural products and the market in commercial consultancy, whereas the language policies hitherto followed by the Commission have consistently proved ineffective.

In view of the above considerations, how does the Commission intend to maintain linguistic and cultural equality in Europe?

What criteria does the Commission use in order to gauge the effectiveness of its language policies?

Does the Commission intend to urge the Member States — or does it intend in its own name — to take up the Unesco General Conference's call (23 C/114) for language issues and Esperanto to be studied in schools and higher-education establishments?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

In accordance with Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Commission supports the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States. The promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe was greatly boosted by the celebration of the European Year of Languages in 2001, in conjunction with the Council of Europe. Following the success of this initiative, in July 2003 the Commission adopted an ambitious Action Plan Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (2004-2006) (1).

Regarding the call issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) to promote the teaching of Esperanto in schools, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that under the EC Treaty the Community contributes to the development of education ‘while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.’

While being open to cooperation with Unesco, the Commission does not envisage any specific initiatives for introducing a study programme on language issues and Esperanto in schools and higher education establishments.

---

(1)  COM(2003)449 final, also available on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/actionplan_en.html).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/428 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/428

---

(2004/C 84 E/0498)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Ireland and Nitrates Directive

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)) was adopted by the Council on 12 December 1991 and should have been implemented in full by all Member States by 1995 at the latest.

In October 2001, the Commission referred Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with the Directive. On 26 June 2003, Advocate-General Geelhoed of the ECJ delivered an opinion to the effect that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive and ordered Ireland to pay the costs of the case.

Could the Commission therefore clarify the claim made by the Irish Minister for Agriculture at the Annual General Meeting of the Irish Farmers' Association on 14 January 2004 that Ireland has negotiated a derogation from the Nitrates Directive?

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/428 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/428

---

(2004/C 84 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Ireland

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)), was adopted by the Council on 12 December 1991 and should have been implemented in full by all Member States by 1995 at the latest.

What action has the Commission taken, or is it considering taking, to ensure that Ireland complies in full with its commitments under this Directive?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0561/04 and E-0563/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

In response to Written Question E-561/04, the Commission confirms that Ireland has not negotiated a derogation from Council Directive 91/676/EEC.

In response to Written Question E-563/04, the Commission confirms that it has taken legal proceedings in the Court of Justice against Ireland for non-compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/429

---

(2004/C 84 E/0500)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/04

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Clarification on the scope of the Recreational Craft Directive

The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC (1)) is based on the principles of the New Approach which provide for CE marking.

The Commission's ‘Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach’ states in Section 2: ‘Scope of New Approach directives’ — ‘A product, which has been subject to important changes that aim to modify its original performance, purpose or type after it has been put into service, may be considered as a new product.’

The Commission's document entitled ‘Recreational Craft Directive and Comments to the Directive Combined’ refers in Article 4(5)(viii) Summary of the application of the Directive after 16 June 1998 — to ‘Boats already in the EEA which are transformed into recreational craft when they were previously used for another purpose. e.g. experimental craft, racing boats, former commercial boats.’ However this section goes on to say that ‘the Directive does not contain any retrospective provisions and, as such, existing boats in service (in use) in the EEA lie outside of the Directive whatever their origin of build.’

Will the Commission now give a ruling on whether an ex-commercial craft henceforth put to use for recreational purposes needs to be CE marked in accordance with the RCD, even if no physical changes have been made to the craft? Does the fact that an ex-commercial craft was built before Directive 94/25/EC came into force alter the situation?

Finally, if ex-commercial craft are to be CE marked, this would prove difficult, since the process of CE marking of ex-commercial craft would have to be ‘Post Constructional Certification’. Will the Commission indicate how this is to be achieved at the present time?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission's ‘Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global approach’ and the Commission's document ‘Recreational Craft Directive and Comments to the Directive combined’ to which the Honourable Member refers, both mention in their foreword that their content is not legally binding; only the Directive has the force of law. Therefore, the clarifications provided in these guides should not and cannot be considered as a ruling by the Commission on the scope of application of the Directive.

Article 1(1) of Directive 94/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 relating to recreational craft, specifies that the Directive shall apply to recreational craft, and in Article 1 (2) of the Directive, recreational craft are defined as: ‘any boat of any type (...) from 2,5 to 24 m hull length, (...) intended for sports and leisure purposes’. From these provisions it emerges that any former commercial craft placed on the market and/or put in service for leisure purposes falls within the scope of the Directive, irrespective of whether physical changes to this boat have been made for that purpose.

The fact that a former commercial boat was built before the Directive came into force does not alter the situation; only the date of its placing on the market and/or putting into service for leisure purposes is relevant as to whether or not that boat will have to comply with the requirements of the Directive.

In view of the above provisions of Article 1 of the Directive, the statement introduced in the second edition of the Commission's document ‘Recreational Craft Directive and Comments to the Directive Combined’ in the comments to Article 4(5) (viii) that: ‘the requirements of the Directive apply to boats already in the EEA which are transformed into recreational craft when they were previously used for another purpose (e.g. experimental craft, racing boats, former commercial boats)’ should therefore be read as a complementary clarification on the Directive's scope of application and not as an extension of it.

Furthermore, the statement referred to by the Honourable Member that: ‘the Directive does not contain any retrospective provisions and, as such, existing boats in service (in use) in the EEA lie outside of the Directive wherever they were built’ should be read as meaning existing recreational craft. Hence this absence of retrospective provisions cannot be invoked for existing former commercial boats whose original intended use is changed into leisure purposes after the date of entry into application of the Directive.

Post construction certification is not explicitly covered by the currently applicable version of the Recreational Craft Directive (i.e. Directive 94/25/EC). However, post construction assessment is at the present time achieved through a commonly agreed approach between notified bodies, which is laid down in Chapter I of their Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG) Guidelines. As from 1 January 2005, post construction assessment will be covered by the Directive through the entry into application of the amending provisions of Article 8a introduced with Directive 2003/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

(2)  OJ L 214, 26.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/430 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/430

---

(2004/C 84 E/0501)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0567/04

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Subject:   Limitation of public exposure to electromagnetic fields

Council recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) set up a Community framework with regard to exposure to electromagnetic fields, to provide protection in areas where members of the public spend significant time in relation to the effects of these fields.

One point of the recommendation provides for revision in the light of progress in scientific assessment of the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields and on the basis of national reports to be prepared after a period of three years and a Commission report prepared within five years.

| 1. | Can the Commission state the current situation regarding the report that it is due to present before 12 July 2004 and state progress in implementing the recommendation, on the basis of information forwarded in the Member States' reports? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state the current situation regarding the report that it is due to present before 12 July 2004 and state progress in implementing the recommendation, on the basis of information forwarded in the Member States' reports?

| 2. | Does the Commission envisage proposing a specific directive on electromagnetic contamination, to establish a Community framework with a high level of protection against public exposure to electromagnetic fields, in accordance with the precautionary principle with regard to environmental protection and public health? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission envisage proposing a specific directive on electromagnetic contamination, to establish a Community framework with a high level of protection against public exposure to electromagnetic fields, in accordance with the precautionary principle with regard to environmental protection and public health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, on 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC limiting the exposure of the general public to non-ionising radiation with a view of protecting human health in a frequency range of 0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Giga Herz (GHz).

In response to the continuing public concern and the requirements of the Recommendation, the Commission asked the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in 2001 to provide an up-dated opinion on this matter. The Committee confirmed in its opinion of 30 October 2001 that the additional information that had become available in recent years did not justify a revision of the exposure limits set in the Council Recommendation and that there was insufficient scientific evidence to propose an alternative. In addition, the Commission published an implementation report concerning the Recommendation in March 2003, covering measures taken in the Member States. The overall picture emerging is that most Member States have implemented measures in line with the Council Recommendation. Some of the Member States have chosen stricter limits or do not cover the whole frequency range.

In addition, Community legislation governing radio products, including mobile telephone masts, obliges manufacturers to ensure that they are safe. In particular, Article 3(l)(a) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (2), also obliges manufacturers to ensure that their products do not have an adverse effect on health when used for their intended purpose. Within the context of this Directive and the Council Recommendation, the Commission is also working towards the establishment of European standards of compliance with the recommended basic restrictions. This is currently done by Cenelec, the European standardisation organisation for electrical equipment. A standard already exists for the measurement of the specific absorption rate related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones (EN 50361).

Finally, considerable research work has been and continues to be undertaken to investigate possible long term effects on health of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Three major studies have been published recently: (a) United Kingdom Independent Advisory Group on Non Ionizing Radiation (January 2004); (b) Health Council of the Netherlands (January 2004); (c) Swedish Radiation Protection Authorities (December 2003).

The three studies conclude that there is no conclusive evidence of other than thermal effects of EMF. This was also confirmed in a conference, which was recently held on the matter (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/emfworkshop/index.htm). The World Health Organisation is currently conducting a major assessment relating to EMF. In addition, the Commission funds research projects (Fifth Framework Programme (FP) and 6th FP) on the biological and health effects of EMF (Directorate General Research and Technological Development DG RTD) and other support action programmes such as COST 281 (DG Information Society (INFSO)) that is contributing to the coordination and harmonisation of national research programmes investigating the possible health implications of EMF. It is to be expected that the outcome of this research work will provide key elements to determine eventual further steps.

The Commission therefore judges premature any operational decision before this project is completed.

The Commission's 2000 Communication on the precautionary principle (3) sets out the framework for its application in the Community context.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(2)  OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(3)  COM(2000) 0001 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/431 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/431

---

(2004/C 84 E/0502)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Leonardo da Vinci programme

The Commission's Leonardo da Vinci programme is intended to help implement EU vocational training policy. The European Union needs to ensure its citizens are better prepared for entry into the job market and, in doing so, reduce the number of unemployed. The economy is also in need of a skilled workforce in order to keep up with the rapid scientific and technological developments. Against this backdrop, the Leonardo da Vinci programme serves as a laboratory of innovation in the field of lifelong learning.

Can the Commission provide a list of the projects that have been approved under the Leonardo programme over the last three years, including details of the promoters and the level of funding, stating how much has been paid out and how much is outstanding?

Are there any noticeable differences in outlook between the countries and the project managers with regard to various criteria, such as budget, share of funding and the actual results?

How does the Commission ensure that an audit of the funded projects is carried out quickly and efficiently, and how much time elapses on average between a project's completion and the audit?

In which countries do difficulties frequently arise when it comes to the audit?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission would like to reiterate the important role played by the Leonardo da Vinci programme in the field of vocational training and lifelong learning.

It would remind the Honourable Member that Parliament has lists of Leonardo da Vinci projects selected at Community level over the last three years. Under the committee procedures, once the programme committee has expressed its opinion, these lists are forwarded to Parliament for scrutiny. They include project titles, promoters' names, project durations and the amounts of financial assistance envisaged for each project.

Most of the projects financed last for a maximum of three years, which means the first significant results were not available until the end of 2003. The Commission is analysing the assessments already undertaken with regard to the final reports and results of projects, including the final subsidy allocations and payment periods. It will inform the Honourable Member of the results of this analysis in due course.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/432 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/432

---

(2004/C 84 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Horse passports

How many of the Member States have implemented European Commission Decision 2000/68/EC (1)? Is the Commission satisfied that they have done so correctly?

Does the Commission have any plans to allow the use of freeze marking and/or microchipping as acceptable methods of identification?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

According to Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, Member States shall ensure that as from 1 July 2000 at the latest, registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production are accompanied during their movement by the identification document as referred to above. This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Decision 2000/68/EC does not oblige Member States to notify the legal provisions they have implemented to comply with the provisions of this Decision. So far, the Commission has not received any complaint relating to the failure of a Member State to implement the above Decision.

Community animal welfare legislation does not contain specific restrictions of the use of these methods. With regard to mutilations in general, Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2) stipulates that relevant national provisions shall apply in accordance with the general rules of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is aware that in certain Member States electronic transponders are used for the identification of equidae. Furthermore, freeze marking and hot branding are used to mark equidae. Freeze branding was required by Community legislation for equidae vaccinated against African horse sickness when this disease occurred on the Iberian Peninsula in 1989.

The legislation in force allows additional active marking in excess of the identification by passport. In such cases, details about the applied marks have to be specified in the identification document.

---

(1)  OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 72.

(2)  OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/433 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/433

---

(2004/C 84 E/0504)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0597/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Freedom of movement

| 1. | Will the Commission tabulate for each Member State the provisions that exist whereby nationals of other Member States may avail themselves of their rights to free movement of labour? For example, which Member States insist on registration with the police or on carrying a special identity card? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission tabulate for each Member State the provisions that exist whereby nationals of other Member States may avail themselves of their rights to free movement of labour? For example, which Member States insist on registration with the police or on carrying a special identity card?

| 2. | At what point is the national of another Member State entitled in each case to claim benefit, and what is the level of that benefit and what are the qualifications for it? |
| --- | --- |

2.

At what point is the national of another Member State entitled in each case to claim benefit, and what is the level of that benefit and what are the qualifications for it?

| 3. | Will the Commission list in the case of each Member State any other provisions that might be regarded as treating nationals of another Member State differently to nationals of the home Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission list in the case of each Member State any other provisions that might be regarded as treating nationals of another Member State differently to nationals of the home Member State?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

| 1. | Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law and includes the right to live and work in another Member State. Insofar as workers are concerned, Article 39 (2) of the EC Treaty prohibits ‘any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States’. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) implements Article 39(2) of the EC Treaty whereas Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (2) abolishes restrictions on movement and residents within the Community for workers and their families. Thus, migrant workers in the EU can exercise their right to free movement simply on production of a valid identity card or passport (3). According to the European Court of Justice, the Member State is entitled to check the passports or identity cards (4) and require that the nationals of the other Member States report their presence to the competent national authorities of the host State. However, such legal formalities must not be designed in such a way that they restrict the freedom of movement required by the EC Treaty or limit the right conferred on nationals of the Member States to enter and reside in the territory of any other Member State for the purposes intended by Community law. (5) Host Member States may also require migrant workers to obtain a residence card. The same rules apply to other EU nationals who make use of their right of free movement and residence.
  According to the Commission's information, Spain has suppressed the obligation to obtain a residence card for EU citizens who are workers, self-employed persons, students or beneficiaries of the right of permanent residence. France has also recently adopted legislation suppressing this obligation for all EU citizens, but this shall not apply to workers from acceding States who will still need to obtain a residence card for as long as the transitional measures last. The rest of the Member States' legislations still lay down the obligation for EU citizens to obtain a residence card. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law and includes the right to live and work in another Member State. Insofar as workers are concerned, Article 39 (2) of the EC Treaty prohibits ‘any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States’. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) implements Article 39(2) of the EC Treaty whereas Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (2) abolishes restrictions on movement and residents within the Community for workers and their families. Thus, migrant workers in the EU can exercise their right to free movement simply on production of a valid identity card or passport (3). According to the European Court of Justice, the Member State is entitled to check the passports or identity cards (4) and require that the nationals of the other Member States report their presence to the competent national authorities of the host State. However, such legal formalities must not be designed in such a way that they restrict the freedom of movement required by the EC Treaty or limit the right conferred on nationals of the Member States to enter and reside in the territory of any other Member State for the purposes intended by Community law. (5) Host Member States may also require migrant workers to obtain a residence card. The same rules apply to other EU nationals who make use of their right of free movement and residence.

According to the Commission's information, Spain has suppressed the obligation to obtain a residence card for EU citizens who are workers, self-employed persons, students or beneficiaries of the right of permanent residence. France has also recently adopted legislation suppressing this obligation for all EU citizens, but this shall not apply to workers from acceding States who will still need to obtain a residence card for as long as the transitional measures last. The rest of the Member States' legislations still lay down the obligation for EU citizens to obtain a residence card.

| 2. | According to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, EU migrant workers ‘shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers’ in the host Member State. Community law does not regulate the level at which these social and tax advantages are set by the individual Member States, but guarantees that regardless of the level at which they are set by a particular Member State, migrant workers from other Member States will need to be given the same treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, EU migrant workers ‘shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers’ in the host Member State. Community law does not regulate the level at which these social and tax advantages are set by the individual Member States, but guarantees that regardless of the level at which they are set by a particular Member State, migrant workers from other Member States will need to be given the same treatment.

| 3. | The Commission can ensure the Honourable Member that it doesn't hesitate to act in accordance with its duty as a guardian of the treaties, when a Member State is in breach of Community law provisions which prohibit discrimination on the ground of nationality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission can ensure the Honourable Member that it doesn't hesitate to act in accordance with its duty as a guardian of the treaties, when a Member State is in breach of Community law provisions which prohibit discrimination on the ground of nationality.

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, Articles 1-12 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76, OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(3)  Dir. 68/360, Article 2(1); Article 3(1); Case C- 68/89; Commission v. Netherlands [1991] ECR I-2637, [1993] 2 CMLR 389. The requirement to hold and produce a valid identity card or passport will not disappear until there has been complete harmonization of national laws concerning immigration into the Community, the grant of visas, asylum and so forth: see Case C-378/97: Wijsenbeck [199] ECR I-6207, paras. 39-45.

(4)  Case 321/87: Commission v. Belgium [1989] ECR 997.

(5)  Case C-265/88: Re Messner [1989] ECR 4209.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/434 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/434

---

(2004/C 84 E/0505)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0601/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Firearms licensing

Can the Commission advise as to whether there are any initiatives to harmonise firearms licensing laws across the enlarged European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The provisions governing the movement of weapons (other than weapons of war) within the EU are contained in Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1).

This directive forms part of the Community acquis and therefore has to be transposed on the day of the new Members' accession. The Commission will make efforts to ensure that this transposition is correct.

The directive in question being a minimum directive, it does not make provision for harmonising firearms licensing laws, focussing mainly on defining the particulars by which firearms may be identified and the procedures for their movement.

The rules which apply to the current Member States will apply in the same way as of 1 May 2004 to all countries which are part of the EU.

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/435

---

(2004/C 84 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/04

by Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Marking down foodstuffs for quick sale

Foodstuffs whose sell-by date is approaching are sold off cheaply by a number of stores. The Belgian consumer association Test-Achat bought 31 highly perishable items such as mince and chicken salad that were being marked down for a quick sale. Tests showed that seven of the samples were unfit for human consumption.

Does the Commission intend to introduce a ban on the marking down of highly perishable foodstuffs for quick sales?

If so, when will it be able to provide more information about this?

If not, why not?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/435

---

(2004/C 84 E/0507)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/04

by Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Sale of foodstuffs that are past their sell-by dates

Some supermarkets in Belgium sell foodstuffs that are past their sell-by dates. This is not illegal when the products are marked ‘best before’, but is illegal for products marked ‘use by’.

Does the Commission intend to introduce a ban on the sale of foodstuffs that are past their sell-by dates?

If so, when will it be able to provide more information about this?

If not, why not?

Does the Commission consider that the differences between ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ should be maintained? What does it think about the possibility of having only one such indication and prohibiting the sale of foodstuffs when that date has expired?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0603/04 and E-0604/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The general principles of food legislation are contained in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (1), which specifically states that food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe, i.e. if it is deemed to be injurious to health or unfit for human consumption.

The practice of selling off foodstuffs at a reduced price must comply with this principle and with the requirements of the legislation in force, particularly hygiene and food labelling legislation. Accordingly, the Commission does not see any reason to ban this practice in principle.

It is the responsibility of the competent national authorities to carry out checks to ensure that the relevant legislation is observed.

In view of the potential risks of this practice, as described by the Honourable Member, the Commission also feels that special requirements might be justified, for example consumer information at the point of sale.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, such requirements may be drawn up and imposed by the Member States.

As regards the sale of out-of-date foodstuffs, the distinction made between ‘best before ...’ (minimum durability date) and ‘use by ...’ (final date for consumption) ensues directly from the Community legislation (2).

The minimum durability date or (in the case of foodstuffs that are highly microbiologically perishable) the final date for consumption must be indicated to the consumer in all cases.

The minimum durability date is the date until which foodstuffs retain their specific properties when properly stored. Foodstuffs may therefore be consumed, and sold, after this date, as the consumer is able to check the date and decide whether or not to purchase the product. This date is indicated after the words ‘best before ...’ or ‘best before end of ...’

In the case of highly microbiological perishable products, the final date for consumption is the date after which the product must not be consumed and logically cannot be sold as it is likely to harbour microbiological risks or organoleptic impairments. This date is indicated after the words ‘use by ...’

In order to avoid any risk of error by the consumer, the Commission feels it is necessary to maintain a distinction between foodstuffs with long durability (in some cases several years) and those which must be consumed quickly.

However, in connection with future developments and any reforms it might propose to labelling legislation, the Commission will examine whether the meanings of the dates used in food labelling need to be clarified and, if so, how.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000. Most recently amended by Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003, OJ L 308, 25.11.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/436 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/436

---

(2004/C 84 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector

In respect of the aid of approximately EUR 700 million granted by the Spanish government to the Spanish shipbuilding sector, can the Commission answer following questions:

| 1. | Was the Commission notified of this aid by the Spanish government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Was the Commission notified of this aid by the Spanish government?

| 2. | Does the European Commission share the view that, given the scale of the Spanish shipbuilding industry, the amount has to be regarded as disproportionate? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the European Commission share the view that, given the scale of the Spanish shipbuilding industry, the amount has to be regarded as disproportionate?

| 3. | Does the European Commission not agree that a thorough investigation is required into the action by the Spanish Government, which potentially involves a distortion of competition and, above all, into how the Spanish shipbuilding industry calculates its cost prices? Has the Commission already begun such an investigation and, if not, when will it do so? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the European Commission not agree that a thorough investigation is required into the action by the Spanish Government, which potentially involves a distortion of competition and, above all, into how the Spanish shipbuilding industry calculates its cost prices? Has the Commission already begun such an investigation and, if not, when will it do so?

| 4. | In view of the seriousness of the general situation in the European shipbuilding sector, is the European Commission prepared to set up a crisis team that can respond quickly and monitor measures taken by Member States, in order to prevent unfair competition on the European internal market? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the seriousness of the general situation in the European shipbuilding sector, is the European Commission prepared to set up a crisis team that can respond quickly and monitor measures taken by Member States, in order to prevent unfair competition on the European internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

| 1. | At this moment in time, Spain has not notified under the State aid rules the measures referred to by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

1.

At this moment in time, Spain has not notified under the State aid rules the measures referred to by the Honourable Member.

| 2. | At this early stage it is not possible to say whether the measures constitute State aid, and if so, whether they are compatible or not. Furthermore, since the measures appear to be intended for a number of years, it is difficult to judge whether, as the Honourable Member states, they are disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

At this early stage it is not possible to say whether the measures constitute State aid, and if so, whether they are compatible or not. Furthermore, since the measures appear to be intended for a number of years, it is difficult to judge whether, as the Honourable Member states, they are disproportionate.

| 3. | The Commission is closely following the issue and will request information from the Spanish authorities. In another file, in which proceedings were opened according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (suspected State aid to Spanish public civil shipyards in the form of capital injections to IZAR) (1), the Commission requested Spain to clarify how overhead costs are distributed in IZAR and to clarify the costs for a civil ferry built in one of IZAR's military shipyards. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is closely following the issue and will request information from the Spanish authorities. In another file, in which proceedings were opened according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (suspected State aid to Spanish public civil shipyards in the form of capital injections to IZAR) (1), the Commission requested Spain to clarify how overhead costs are distributed in IZAR and to clarify the costs for a civil ferry built in one of IZAR's military shipyards.

| 4. | Concerning the suggestion of a crisis team for shipbuilding, the Commission is not fully sure of how such a team could work from a practical or legal point of view. However, the Honourable Member can be assured that allegations of unfair competition in the EU shipbuilding market are taken very seriously in the Commission, and that adequate human resources are already used in the State aid departments to follow the shipbuilding industry. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Concerning the suggestion of a crisis team for shipbuilding, the Commission is not fully sure of how such a team could work from a practical or legal point of view. However, the Honourable Member can be assured that allegations of unfair competition in the EU shipbuilding market are taken very seriously in the Commission, and that adequate human resources are already used in the State aid departments to follow the shipbuilding industry.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 26.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/437 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/437

---

(2004/C 84 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0625/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   If the French State prevents Jean-Marie Le Pen from standing in the regional elections it would represent a serious breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty

The candidacy of the former MEP Jean-Marie Le Pen at the forthcoming French regional elections in the Provence-Alpes-Côtes d'Azur (PACA) region appears to have been blocked for specious, bureaucratic reasons, which appear all the more petty and politically motivated given that this politician, who received the most votes after Chirac in the recent French presidential elections, could legally have stood and been elected as a regional councillor in the aforementioned region of France.

Does the Commission consider that the possible exclusion for captious formal reasons of the right-wing political leader Jean-Marie Le Pen represents a serious breach of the principle of political freedom which forms the basis of the EU and that it goes against the guarantees laid down by the European Convention on safeguarding human rights and basic freedoms in terms of civil and political rights, which in a democracy must be enjoyed by all citizens?

In the case in point, does not the Commission consider that this is a clear and flagrant breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty — intended to safeguard the principles set out above — and in particular of its paragraphs 1 and 2, on the part of the French authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Under the EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union, the Commission does not have any general powers regarding fundamental rights. It may act only in cases where those rights have been infringed in connection with the application of Community law.

Since no aspect of Community law is involved here, the Commission does not consider itself competent to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/438 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/438

---

(2004/C 84 E/0510)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0633/04

by Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Integration of the Commission in Brussels

The European Commission employs approximately 21 000 staff in Brussels and has an extensive range of buildings. In its communication on buildings policy and infrastructures in Brussels (1) the Commission develops an approach to its premises in Brussels with particular reference to quality of life in the European Quarter.

The communication sets out an action plan concerning various aspects of integration in Brussels: Europe's image in Brussels, mobility plan for the Commission, housing policy for staff, dialogue with the Belgian authorities at various levels.

Has the European Commission discussed these plans with the other European institutions and the various Belgian authorities? If so, when did the relevant consultations take place, if not what were the main obstacles to preventing this?

Will the Commission take the lead in starting discussions with the other institutions on this issue and convincing them of the need for a coherent approach?

The Belgian Government recently decided — following the example set by the Flemish government — to offer its staff free travel from home to work; is the Commission also considering measures of this kind?

Is Commission prepared to integrate its child-care and education facilities more closely with the existing infrastructure in Brussels and open them up to the entire population of Brussels (in terms of cost as well), to encourage greater contacts between the local population and Commission staff?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The European institutions have set up an Inter-Institutional Infrastructure, Logistics and Internal Services Working Group, whose objective is to coordinate the policies of the Institutions' in Brussels on buildings and infrastructure and their dealings with the host country's authorities. The Working Group has discussed the communication from the Commission on the building policy and infrastructures in Brussels (2) and the Plan Médiateur (3), a consultative Belgian outline for achieving improvements in the part of Brussels that includes the European quarter. The discussions have shown that each Institution is convinced of the need for a consistent and constructive approach to these issues. Contact with the Belgian authorities is, similarly, continuing at several levels (Brussels Region, Federal Government, Buildings Department and semi-public entities such as MIVB/STIB). The Commission wishes to further strengthen contact with those authorities through consideration of the Plan Médiateur.

A Commission proposal for reducing travel costs for officials using public transport between home and work is under consideration as part of a draft Mobility Plan which is currently being drawn up by the Commission's Office for Infrastructure and Logistics. This proposal is due for completion later this year. The first step is for the Commission to determine whether funding is available for implementing such a plan or, if not, to find alternative sources of financial support.

As far as child care provisions are concerned, there are currently over 3 60 children on the waiting list for the nurseries run by the Commission. Current estimates are that enlargement of the Union will increase that figure to around 770. At present it is therefore difficult to envisage the enrolment of any children other than those of officials. The Commission has expanded its own nursery facilities, partly because of a lack of sufficient suitable capacity in Brussels generally. Making nursery places available is also a specified objective of the welfare dimension of Commission reform and of its commitment to provide working conditions for all officials that advance the equality of opportunity.

---

(1)  COM(2003)755.

(2)  COM(2003) 755 final.

(3)  Ombudsplan Bru/Eur Médiateur — Aries consultants. Study commissioned by the Prime Minister's Office and the Office of the President of the Brussels Region.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/439 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/439

---

(2004/C 84 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0635/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject:   Creation of a European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Has the Commission already started preparatory work on the early establishment of a European Network and Information Security Agency and, if so, what is involved?

Can the Commission say when, at the earliest, the Agency will be operational?

Where will the Agency finally be established?

When will the decision to establish the Agency be published in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased to confirm that preparatory works for the establishment of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) are well underway. In fact, the Commission has already prepared and circulated among ail Member States' and Accession Countries' Permanent Representations the draft vacancy notice for the post of the Agency's Executive Director, which will be published shortly after adoption of the Regulation.

Furthermore, the Commission has already invited, through the Permanent Representations, Member States and Accession Countries to nominate their representatives and alternates on the Agency's Management Board. The nominations are expected to take place by the end of March 2004.

The Commission is also developing the ENISA website (http://www.enisa.eu.int) which will be available online as soon as the Regulation enters into force, i.e. on the day following its publication in the Official Journal.

The Commission expects the Agency to be operational shortly after the nomination of its Director, which is planned just before the end of July 2004.

Concerning the future location of the Agency, the Director-General of Directorate-General Information Society (DG INFSO) has been informed by Mr Manolis Stratakis, Deputy-Minister of Transport and Communications of Greece, that the Greek Government has decided to host ENISA at Heraklion, on the island of Crete.

Finally, as regards the publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the signature of the Regulation by the President of the Parliament is foreseen on 10 March 2004 and that publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal will occur, at the latest, 10 working days after its reception at the Publications Office.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/440 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/440

---

(2004/C 84 E/0512)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0641/04

by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject:   Results of testing for the presence of GMOs in seeds since 2000

On 10 July 2000, the Standing Committee on Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Seeds and Plants decided that the Member States should carry out regular testing for GMOs on conventional and organic seeds and inform the other Member States and the Commission of the results. This was also to apply to seeds imported from third countries.

For which Member States does the Commission have test reports for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003?

What are the results of the individual tests (in terms of the detection of GMO impurities, frequency and quantity etc.)?

What measures have the Commission and the Member States taken where GMO impurities have been discovered in seedlots?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry discussed on 10 July 2000 a plan for co-ordinated and harmonized interim action with respect to genetically modified organisms (GMO) ‘impurities’ in seed lots of conventional varieties with a view to immediate implementation and without prejudice to related legislative measures in preparation at that time.

At this time, 13 Member States agreed to organize testing of selected seed lots of conventional varieties to determine the possible presence of GMO ‘impurities’. Testing was to be in accordance with certain defined criteria (details of the action plan can be found in the report of the meeting of 10 July 2000 on website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/rc/scsp/index_en.html) regarding the species to be tested, the origin of the seed lots, the actions which would be taken in the case of the presence of unauthorised and authorised GMOs, and Member States agreed to inform the other Member States and the Commission of any finding.

The Standing Committee has noted the results of the testing undertaken by Member States on different occasions since July 2000 and short reports are available under the above-mentioned internet address. The Commission has also received, sometimes directly from Member States, results of testing.

Controls have started at various times in the different Member States and at different frequencies. The action plan being not legally binding, Member States have not applied the same thresholds (some of the Member States have adopted national law with lower thresholds, some others with the proposed threshold for authorised GMOs) and have not taken the same actions in case of GM presence. They have not informed systematically the Commission of all the actions taken. From the results which are rather disparate in the different Member States, it appears that in a large number of samples no GM was detected or was present below the thresholds applied by the Member States. Few samples were declared positive for authorised GMOs (above the threshold) or showed a detectable presence of GM not authorised for cultivation.

Moreover, the Commission notes that Member States have communicated the results of testing in answering the letter addressed to them by the Honourable Member on 13 November 2003 concerning the adventitious presence of GMO in seeds.

The test results demonstrate a need for harmonised legal thresholds and measures when the threshold is exceeded. This is why the Commission continues to work on the establishment of thresholds below which the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of authorised GM seeds in seeds of non-GM varieties will not require labelling. As the Honourable Member is aware, it is intended to adopt these thresholds under the ‘horizontal’ Directive 2001/18/EC (1) in the Regulatory Committee procedure. Identical thresholds will then be adopted under the sector-based seed legislation in the Management Committee to ensure consistency, with, in addition, specific certification requirements as regards GM adventitious presence in seeds.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/441

---

(2004/C 84 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject:   Further information on question concerning portability of supplementary pension rights

In its reply of 19 February 2004 to Question P-0207/04 (1), the Commission stated that it was currently investigating the scope for the adoption of a binding EU legal act concerning similar minimum provisions to protect mobile workers in relation to the preconditions for access to occupational pension schemes, qualification periods, reassessment of inactive entitlements (i.e. the entitlements of people who have left a scheme but have not yet reached retirement age) and the arrangements for transferring entitlements.

What stage have the considerations and preparations with regard to the substance and feasibility of the proposal for a directive reached?

What is the Commission's timetable for the assessment?

When will the Commission submit the proposal for a directive?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

As stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question No P-0207/04, the Commission is currently investigating the potential benefits of adopting a binding EU act establishing minimum requirements similar to those already in force in a number of Member States.

The Commission will take account of Member States' experience, drawing on the expertise of the Pensions Forum. Over the coming months it will collect from the Member States and Pensions Forum experts the information it needs in order to be able to present a proposal for legislation in autumn 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/441

---

(2004/C 84 E/0514)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0645/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject:   Expert advice in the JHA sector

How many expert groups advise the Commission in the JHA sector? What actions have been taken as a result of their recommendations without reference to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

About sixty expert groups advise the Commission in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) sector and eleven more are expected to be created in 2004. These groups consider and exchange information on issues related to the practical application of Community legislation, discuss on an informal basis preliminary drafts of legislative proposals or policy documents, bring together interested stakeholders to discuss new approaches, or support the Commission in the development of Large Scale IT systems. The Parliament is very often invited to the meetings, and the activities of many of these groups are reported to it.

These groups do not formulate or adopt any formal recommendations and no particular conclusions are drawn up. Opinions expressed by experts in these groups are not to any extent binding upon the Commission. However, the Commission takes into account the views or comments expressed by experts as one source of input in the development of policies and in the preparation of legislative proposals or policy documents.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/442 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/442

---

(2004/C 84 E/0515)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0653/04

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 March 2004)

Subject:   Question E-0760/03 — Operating conditions for incineration plants under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002

In its answer to the above question, the Commission stated that incineration processes not included under Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 (1) would be allowed, provided they took into account the animal and human health and environmental risks involved.

The Commission has since looked at several proposed amendments to Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 that would allow alternative disposal processes. These specifically are Doc. SANCO/2153/2003 from June 2003, Doc. SANCO/2153/2003, Rev. 5, from September 2003 and Doc. SANCO/2153/2003 Rev. 7.

According to the latest revision, the rules on using animal fat in incineration are now to be removed from Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 and the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority is awaited.

The constant changes by the Commission have meant that competent national authorities have now withdrawn licences for certain disposal processes promised in advance to the operators of rendering plants, resulting in considerable financial losses.

When can the European Food Safety Authority be expected to issue its opinion?

To what extent is this opinion binding on the Commission and when can a binding Commission decision revising Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 be expected?

To what extent will the European Food Safety Authority and/or the Commission bring the processes into line with the actual situation, that is by drawing on the proposals for revision in Doc. SANCO/2153/2003 from June 2003 and Doc. SANCO/2153/2003, Rev. 5, from September 2003, as well as the proposal in Written Question E-0760/03 (2)?

Do the latest developments make it absolutely necessary for licences that were granted by national authorities on the basis of previous Commission amendment proposals in favour of alternative processes to be withdrawn?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The following reply is in addition to the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0760/03.

The Scientific Steering Committee adopted an opinion at its meeting of 10 and 11 April 2003, recommending that the process of combustion of animal fats could be regarded as safe for animal fats derived from Categories 2 and 3 materials under certain circumstances, but cannot be assessed, due to a lack of information, for animal fats derived from Category 1 materials.

Following this opinion, further information on Category 1 materials has been made available for evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The draft proposal in preparation for the approval of alternative processes has been discussed extensively with Member State experts and has been amended on the basis of these discussions. As such the different revisions of the document quoted by the Honourable Member does not have any legally binding effect.

The Commission expects an opinion from EFSA on the alternative combustion process before the end of 2004. The scientific recommendations will constitute the basis for further discussions with Member States and with the industry concerned. At this time it is not possible to predict the wording of the final text approving the process.

---

(1)  OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 233.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/443 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/443

---

(2004/C 84 E/0516)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Mobile neutering units

Does the Commission recognise the value of mobile cat neutering units in the context of controlling animal disease and the rise in the number of feral cats in Member States? Is the Commission aware of a new law in Italy to ban the use of mobile neutering units for domestic cats?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The neutering of cats, notably as a way to deal with the problems of feral animals or for other veterinary reasons, is not a matter which falls within the scope of Community law.

It follows, therefore, that Member States have the exclusive competence to decide the conditions under which such neutering may take place within their territories including the imposition of restrictions on the use of mobile units.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/443 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/443

---

(2004/C 84 E/0517)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0704/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Transport of poultry

EU citizens have repeatedly expressed concern for the conditions in which animals destined for slaughter or further fattening are kept, and the EP itself has called several times for an overall time limit for transport of eight hours or 500 km.

This concern regards all kind of animals, whose suffering should be limited by stricter rules.

The EC proposal for a review of the legislation on transport does not include any reference to stocking densities, journey limits, or stops for feeding and watering for poultry.

Several cases of transport of poultry which have involved serious problems of welfare and even death of these animals have been reported; in some cases, hundreds of animals died because the cages in which they were kept were broken by the cages above that crashed on to them.

Strict measures for the protection of poultry need to be introduced as a matter of urgency.

The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) is currently producing evidence relating to the transport of poultry.

How and when will the Commission introduce standards for poultry within the debate for a new Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the animal welfare problems that may occur in the transport of poultry mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission proposal now under discussion in the Parliament and in the Council already includes general animal welfare requirements for the protection of poultry during transport aimed at improving the current situation.

Furthermore, in October 2002 the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare to examine the issue in order to elaborate a detailed scientific opinion on the protection of poultry during transport.

As the Scientific Committee for Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Schahaw) had not completed its evaluation at the time of transfer of competence for scientific advice from the Commission to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the request was taken over by the EFSA Panel and Animal Health and Welfare.

Once the EFSA opinion becomes available the Commission will consider presenting a proposal to introduce additional standards for poultry.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/444 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/444

---

(2004/C 84 E/0518)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0709/04

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Alcatel crisis (Rieti)

With regard to the decision by the multinational company Alcatel to restructure and even close the facilities at Rieti and Battipaglia, and since several questions have already been put to the Commission highlighting the importance of preserving these facilities in order to safeguard employment and the high level of technology provided in a significantly under-developed area, could the Commission indicate:

| 1. | whether the Italian authorities have referred the serious crisis affecting Alcatel to the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the Italian authorities have referred the serious crisis affecting Alcatel to the European Commission;

| 2. | what initiatives the Commission has it within its powers to take; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what initiatives the Commission has it within its powers to take;

| 3. | how it can ensure that the owners and public authorities responsible guarantee the workers' right, in line with principles laid down in current European regulations, to precise and transparent information on a restructuring process that is jeopardising a major technological pole and employment itself? |
| --- | --- |

3.

how it can ensure that the owners and public authorities responsible guarantee the workers' right, in line with principles laid down in current European regulations, to precise and transparent information on a restructuring process that is jeopardising a major technological pole and employment itself?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Italian authorities have not approached the Commission to discuss the crisis affecting Alcatel and potential remedies.

As far as the negative effects on the economy are concerned, the Battipaglia region is eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Objective 1, the Rieti province is partly eligible for assistance under Objective 2 and the municipality of Cittaducale, where the Alcatel plant is located, is an eligible area.

Measures to convert production capacity may be financed, following an initiative by the regional authorities (Campania and Lazio), which are the authorities responsible for selecting and conducting operations.

The Commission wishes to point out that several Community Directives lay down procedures of information and of consultation of workers' representatives which can prove to be applicable in the event of restructuring of companies, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning collective redundancies (1), and Council Directive 94/45/EC, of 22 September 1994, concerning the European Works Councils (2). Another Directive was also adopted on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council with the aim of supplementing the Community mechanism on the matter (Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework relating to information and consultation of workers in the European Community (3)).

It is important to recall that the Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies stipulates that, when an employer envisages collective redundancies, it is required to carry out, in good time, consultations with the workers' representatives with a view to reaching an agreement. These consultations cover at least the possibilities of avoiding or of reducing the collective redundancies as well as the possibilities of alleviating their consequences by recourse to social accompanying measures aiming at, in particular, aid for redeployment and retraining of redundant workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(3)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/445 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/445

---

(2004/C 84 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Johne's disease

What plans does the Commission have to address the animal welfare issues posed by Johne's disease in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is obviously concerned at the serious animal health and welfare issues posed by the occurrence of Johne's disease (paratuberculosis) within the EU.

With a view to increasing the available scientific knowledge, a number of specific research projects have already been funded under the Community's Framework Programmes to investigate this disease. These have considered aspects such as improved diagnostic methods, epidemiology and risk assessment, the role of wildlife in disease transmission and management tools to control the disease in domestic ruminants.

The Commission has also recently requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to issue a scientific opinion on the risk of transmission of the causative organism Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis via bovine semen.

The Commission will carefully analyse the outcome of this work and ongoing scientific advances with a view to taking appropriate steps to safeguard the health and welfare of animals within the EU.

In addition, it should be noted that programmes for the control and/or eradication of Johne's disease are in principle eligible for Community co-financing within the framework of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1). However, to date, no Member State has submitted such a programme to the Commission for consideration.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/446 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/446

---

(2004/C 84 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding

At the meeting last week in Brussels involving trade union delegations and workers from Ansaldo-Breda, it emerged that the company has benefited from assistance supporting production activities in depressed areas of Italy, as provided for in Italian Law No 488/92, in the form of EU cofinancing. Specifically, funding has been made available for work on replacing the company's roof with eternit (asbestos lumber), so as to bring the workplace up to European standards in terms of safeguarding and protecting workers.

However, it would not appear that funding was requested to provide environmental protection for the surrounding area, despite the presence of an important acquifer in the vicinity of the establishment.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

| 1. | Whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind?

| 2. | What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/446 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/446

---

(2004/C 84 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0734/04

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Skiing safety and standardisation

Is the Commission aware that the grading of green, blue, red and black on ski-runs in different resorts and different countries can vary considerably?

Is the Commission concerned that such variation can not only be misleading to consumers, but may also constitute a safety risk to skiers who could find themselves on runs that are beyond their abilities?

Will the Commission agree to look at this issue, with a view to considering some form of standardisation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of differences in the grading of green, blue, red and black ski runs in different European countries and between different skiing areas. The colour grading is in most cases based on recommendations from the relevant national organisations, including the skiing federations and the cable lift organisations in the ski centres. According to the representatives of the relevant organisations, the grading in different countries does not vary significantly. Black ski runs are the most difficult ones, and the grading is based on the average steepness of the run as a percentage and/or in degrees, as well as the general characteristics of the run including width and curves. The exact borderline between the categories differs to some degree in the different guidelines, so that for example some red runs in one country might have been black in another country. The issue of further harmonisation of the exact borderlines based on safety concerns has not been discussed in the relevant organisations since grading of runs is not reported to have been a major cause of accidents.

In June 2003, the Commission adopted a general report on the safety of consumer services (1) which was also submitted to the Parliament. The preliminary report identified tourism and sports and leisure services (including skiing) as the key sectors for further initiatives at European level. Based on investigations of the policies and legislation in Member States, the Commission's conclusion in the report is that there is a major lack of knowledge about risks in the area and that there is no evidence, at this stage, of distortions to the internal market which would justify harmonised European legislation. Therefore the Commission proposes, as a first step, to establish a legal framework in order to improve the knowledge base with regard to accidents and injuries, to establish a procedure for exchange of information and a procedure for the development of standards where this is deemed appropriate.

The Council in its Resolution of 1 December 2003 on safety of services for consumers (2) supported the Commission's approach in this area. The Commission is now in the process of following up the report, in particular identifying priorities for action and assessing options. The skiing sector will be considered in this context.

In the more general field of work on standardisation of services, the Commission recently mandated the European standardisation organisations (European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation (Cenelec) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)) to develop a standardisation work programme to support the internal market for services. These organisations will consider the priorities for standardisation, including standardisation of safety issues, and present their work programme to the Commission by the end of 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 313 final.

(2)  OJ C 299, 10.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/447 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/447

---

(2004/C 84 E/0522)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/04

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject:   Safety of public buildings in areas of high seismic risk

Considering that:

| — | in its Recommendation 2003/887/EC (1) of 11 December 2003 on the implementation and use of Eurocodes for construction works and structural construction products, the European Commission calls on Member States to use common codes in the construction and design of building works, based on material resistance calculations that provide a guarantee of stability in the event of seismic events or fire; |
| --- | --- |

—

in its Recommendation 2003/887/EC (1) of 11 December 2003 on the implementation and use of Eurocodes for construction works and structural construction products, the European Commission calls on Member States to use common codes in the construction and design of building works, based on material resistance calculations that provide a guarantee of stability in the event of seismic events or fire;

| — | on 31 October 2002, an earthquake of medium intensity resulted in the collapse of a primary school in the municipality of San Giuliano di Puglia (Molise, Italy), causing the deaths of 27 children; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 31 October 2002, an earthquake of medium intensity resulted in the collapse of a primary school in the municipality of San Giuliano di Puglia (Molise, Italy), causing the deaths of 27 children;

| — | the municipality of Bojano, which is in an area of maximum seismic risk (1 S=12), is located on the same seismic fault (Matese) as San Giuliano and in 1 805 suffered losses and damage as a result of an earthquake that caused 7 000 deaths (the public buildings in Bojano were erected in the absence of any anti-seismic construction standards). |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipality of Bojano, which is in an area of maximum seismic risk (1 S=12), is located on the same seismic fault (Matese) as San Giuliano and in 1 805 suffered losses and damage as a result of an earthquake that caused 7 000 deaths (the public buildings in Bojano were erected in the absence of any anti-seismic construction standards).

In order to avoid a repeat of the catastrophe that occurred in San Giuliano and in view of the danger posed by seismic activity in the area (and to the municipality of Bojano in particular), would the Commission not consider it appropriate to bring forward a legislative proposal on the ‘safety of public buildings’ that calls on Member States to establish programmes for the surveying and evaluation of the structural resistance of public buildings, and in particular schools, and makes it obligatory for all buildings in areas of high seismic risk to be earthquake-proof.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Eurocodes are European standards which guarantee a high level of safety in the construction works to which they apply and thereby confer a presumption of conformity with essential requirement No 1 ‘mechanical resistance and stability’ of the Construction Products Directive, including in areas at risk from seismic movements.

However, the use of these standards is voluntary and alternative methods may also guarantee safety. It should also be pointed out that under the terms of the Construction Products Directive, it is the Member States which are responsible for the safety of construction works.

The purpose of the recommendation is to ask the Member States not only to accord Eurocodes the presumption of conformity with their own safety requirements, but also to promote their use. This makes it possible to achieve the prime objective of guaranteeing the free movement of engineering services and products in the EU. In addition, the adoption of the Eurocodes by all the Member States should, in the Commission's view, facilitate the development of joint research activities, which should make it possible to raise the general safety of construction works, particularly with regard to seismic risk.

The Commission has no current plans to put forward a legislative proposal obliging the Member States to implement the Eurocodes. It does, however, closely monitor their implementation and reserves the right, if necessary, to investigate other initiatives if the results expected are not achieved.

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 19.12.2003, p. 62.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/448 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/448

---

(2004/C 84 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0787/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

On 29 January 2004 I received an answer from the Commission to my Written Question P-4074/03 (1) concerning problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC (2) on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs. The Commission indicated that it was aware that the implementation of national measures had been suspended in three Member States.

Proper administration entails adopting sound legislation and regularly evaluating and where necessary adjusting it. In this specific instance, problems have arisen even before the transposed provisions have been published or, in certain Member States, have entered into force. It may perhaps be that the consequences of the decision on indicating percentages on labels of compound feedingstuffs were misjudged.

In the light of the problems which have already arisen in a number of Member States: Does the Commission envisage submitting a proposal to amend Directive 2002/2/EC in order to drop the compulsory indication of percentages on labels? Or does the Commission still stand fully behind the Directive, and does it intend to put forward a proposal for amendment only if legally obliged to do so as a consequence of the ruling of the Court and in the meantime to allow the implementation of the relevant measure, which is leading to distortion of competition, to continue?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-4074/03, the Commission still supports the legitimacy of the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/2/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feeding stuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC. It is waiting for the preliminary ruling to be given by the European Court of Justice on this issue.

Without prejudice to the Commission's intention to propose, in the medium-term, a recast of the feed labelling legislation, the Commission does not intend to propose an amendment to Directive 2002/2/EC in view of the current situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 23.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/449 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/449

---

(2004/C 84 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0799/04

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject:   UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC

Are UK regulations The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003', with particular regard to section 7(3), in full compliance with Directive 2000/78/EC (1), in particular Article 4(2)?

If the regulations do not fully comply with the Directive, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is reviewing the legislation submitted to it by Member States and which implements Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, including The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 submitted by the United Kingdom.

The Commission expects all Member State legislation to fully and properly implement the Directive. The Commission will pay particular attention to the way in which the Member States use any of the derogations set out in the Directive including Article 4(2) regarding genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements. As with any exception to the principle of equal treatment, the provisions of this Article are to be interpreted strictly.

The first paragraph of Article 4(2) allows Member States to maintain provisions in their legislation which are in force at the date of the adoption of the Directive and which provide that differences of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination when the religion or belief, by the nature of the activities or the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement having regard to the organisation's ethos. This is also the case when Member States adopt new legislation, but only, if at the time of the adoption of the Directive, national practices pursuing this aim were already in existence.

It is also important that this paragraph refers only to differences of treatment based on a person's religion or belief. Differences of treatment on other grounds are not mentioned. Furthermore, the paragraph stipulates that this difference of treatment ‘should not justify discrimination on another ground’. Therefore, differences of treatment which are not based on a person's religion or belief are not permissible under Article 4(2).

As already mentioned, the Commission is reviewing Member States' legislation. Where Member States choose to take advantage of the derogations from the principle of equal treatment set out in the Directive and the Commission concludes that their legislation does not meet the strict requirements of the derogations within the Directive, including Article 4(2), then the Commission will take all necessary actions under the EC Treaty to ensure Member State compliance.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/450

---

(2004/C 84 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0823/04

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Recognition of degrees and denial of employment

A Greek citizen obtained a degree in air traffic control in Scotland in 1981. His diploma was recognised by the Greek Education Ministry in 1983. Since that date, the Civil Aviation Authority has systematically refused to allow him to take part in competitions to appoint employees on the grounds that he does not fulfil the qualifications criteria, which call for diplomas with no connection with the field in question. It should be pointed out that air traffic control degrees are not awarded at any institution in Greece.

Could the Commission therefore say whether the Civil Aviation Authority's conduct is contrary to Community law? If so, what steps can this citizen take to ensure that he can freely practise his profession?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Unfortunately, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not detailed enough to allow the Commission to decide whether any infringement of Community law by the Greek Authorities has taken place.

However, the Commission would reiterate the following principles.

Under Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its education system. In the absence of harmonisation, it is the responsibility of Member States to regulate the conditions governing access to, and the practice of an occupation on their territory. However, Community law does not allow migrants to be put at an unfair disadvantage in relation to holders of national diplomas simply because their qualifications were obtained in another Member State.

Thus, Community Law (1) requires national authorities to take into account, for professional purposes, qualifications obtained in another Member State. This does not mean that the qualification is recognised automatically. National authorities should examine the qualifications and compare the training completed by the migrant and the training required in the host Member State for access to the regulated profession concerned. They must, if necessary, allow the migrant to undergo an adaptation period or take an aptitude test, in order to make up for any considerable differences which may exist between the migrant's training and that required by the host Member State.

For employment in the public sector, where access is restricted to those who hold a qualification attesting to a certain level of education without the contents being specified, Article 39 of the EC Treaty can be directly applied. In this case it is the level of education attested to by a diploma rather than the detailed contents of the training which should be taken into account for admission to the selection procedure.

Since the question concerns the steps which the citizen concerned could take, as well as the possibility of lodging a complaint with the Commission and given that this is an individual case the Commission advises the citizen to seek redress from the national administrative authorities or courts, which alone have the jurisdiction to overturn a decision taken by a national authority concerning that citizen.

Finally, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the recent adoption of the legislation package on a ‘Single European Sky’. Article 5 of the Regulation of the Parliament and the Council on the supply of air navigation services (2) states that ‘as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission will submit, if necessary, to the European Parliament and the Council, a proposal concerning the granting of licences to controllers’. This proposal will lead to a European Air Traffic Controller's licence, which will facilitate the free movement of workers through mutual recognition of these licences.

---

(1)  Depending on the level of education required:

| — | Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989 or |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989 or

| — | Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992. |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992.

(2)  Not yet published.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/451

---

(2004/C 84 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0824/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Vaccination of pet farm animals

The number of hobby farmers in Europe is growing rapidly. There are already 250 000 hobby farmers in the Netherlands alone. These farmers own chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, ducks, geese, swans, quails, pheasants, peacocks, partridges and walking birds (ostriches, emu and nandos) and doves that are not kept for consumption.

As a result of the outbreak of avian influenza in 2003, I asked the Commission a number of questions on the preventive culling of poultry kept by hobby farmers (Written Question E-1401/03 (1)).

In answer to my question, Commissioner Byrne indicated, on 2 June 2003, that the decision to introduce emergency vaccination around an outbreak may be taken by an affected Member State, following notification to the Commission. The Member State is free to choose between preventive culling and preventive vaccination, in both cases following notification to the Commission.

This means that, in practice, pet farm animals may be vaccinated.

The European Commission and the Council of Agriculture Ministers are currently drawing up a new law.

How will the position of hobby farmers be regulated in the new law: is there to be a separate status for pet farm animals (with the possibility of preventive vaccination), or will the possibility remain that pet farm animals will still have to be culled?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is in the process of assessing the outbreaks of avian influenza in the European Union during 2003 and the present outbreaks in Asia and North America. The lessons learned from these events and the opinions delivered by scientists will be the basis for drafting a proposal for a revised legislation on avian influenza, which the Commission intends to submit to the Parliament and the Council in 2004. In this framework the issue of vaccination of both commercial and hobby birds will be considered taking into account all relevant epidemiological, socio-economic and animal welfare implications. It is clear, however, that the Commission will have to consider also the evolution at international level in this field and in particular the standards of the OIE (Office International des Epizooties).

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 196.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/452

---

(2004/C 84 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0849/04

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Late payment in commercial operations

8 August 2000 saw the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

Article 6 of this directive lays down a deadline of two years from its publication for adoption by the Member States of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive. This deadline expired on 8 August 2002.

The directive makes it clear that late payment represent a failure to fulfil a contract, to the financial benefit of debtors. In addition, the existence of late payment on a larger scale in some Member States than others creates a distortion of free competition in the internal market.

In early July 2003 the Spanish government presented a draft law instituting measures against delayed payment in commercial transactions. However, the draft text, which appeared in report form in the Official Bulletin of the Spanish Parliament on 3 December 2003, has yet to be adopted.

Can the Commission ask the Spanish government to account for this delay and insist that Spain implements the directive as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is conscious of the negative effects of late payments and accordingly is pursuing infringement proceedings against the relevant Member States (i.e. Spain and Luxembourg), as fast as possible. Infringement proceedings against Spain began on 30 September 2002, and the second stage was opened on 6 February 2003, when the Commission sent to the Spanish Government a Reasoned Opinion giving a time limit of two months for adopting all necessary national measures of transposition. On 9 September 2003 the Commission initiated proceedings against Spain before the Court of Justice (case C-384/03). There is no ruling yet, but it is expected in 6 to 12 months.

Unfortunately infringement proceedings tend to take a long time to reach a decision. The Commission hopes that Spain will now fulfil its responsibility under the Directive as quickly as possible, in order to avoid further proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/453 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/453

---

(2004/C 84 E/0528)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0865/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   European subsidies paid to the Flemish community

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What percentage of all EU subsidies were received each year by the Flemish community in Belgium from 1999 to 2003? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What percentage of all EU subsidies were received each year by the Flemish community in Belgium from 1999 to 2003?

| 2. | How much did the Flemish community receive (in euro) over the same period for:






  — | agriculture; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

How much did the Flemish community receive (in euro) over the same period for:

—

agriculture;

| — | structural funds, by objective and by Community initiative? |
| --- | --- |

—

structural funds, by objective and by Community initiative?

| 3. | What amounts (in euro) did the European Union pay to the Flemish community over the same period for:






  — | research and technological development (framework programmes); |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

What amounts (in euro) did the European Union pay to the Flemish community over the same period for:

—

research and technological development (framework programmes);

| — | trans-European networks; |
| --- | --- |

—

trans-European networks;

| — | education, youth; |
| --- | --- |

—

education, youth;

| — | others? |
| --- | --- |

—

others?

| 4. | What were the annual amounts over the period 1999 to 2003 of the subsidies paid:






  — | through official (public) bodies (Flemish community, provinces and so on); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

What were the annual amounts over the period 1999 to 2003 of the subsidies paid:

—

through official (public) bodies (Flemish community, provinces and so on);

| — | private operators (non-profit-making organisations, universities or colleges of higher education)? |
| --- | --- |

—

private operators (non-profit-making organisations, universities or colleges of higher education)?

| 5. | What frauds or irregularities in the subsidies were reported and have any recoveries of subsidies been made in the above areas? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What frauds or irregularities in the subsidies were reported and have any recoveries of subsidies been made in the above areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/454

---

(2004/C 84 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

I would like to draw the Commission's attention to problems relating to the reconstruction of the Land-administered road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony. These problems have been the subject of a petition to the European Parliament (364/2000), which was registered on 25 May 2000 and last discussed by the Committee on Petitions on 20 February 2003. The Committee is still awaiting the information requested from the relevant authorities in Germany.

Over the four years since the petition was submitted and during which the road S 282 A was completed, an increasing number of conflicting pieces of information have come to light.

Firstly, contradictory statements have been made with regard to the cost.

In a letter of 23 May 2003 to Mr Nino Gemelli (Chairman of the Committee on Petitions), the German ambassador Dr Schönfelder (Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU) confirmed that the extension of the road S 282 A would cost EUR 50 million, referring to information from German authorities.

In a letter of 19 May 2003 to Mr Iltgen, President of Saxony's state parliament, the total cost of constructing the road was estimated by Saxony's State Minister of Economic Affairs and Labour at EUR 4,63 million. Just a few weeks later (on 4 July 2003), in reply to the same question, the Minister informed Mr Iltgen that the cost would be only EUR 4,3 million.

In addition, it is suspected that the reconstruction of the road S 282 A was intentionally declared to be an ‘extension’ although this was not the case, as only one year after the road was completed it was downgraded from the original ‘supraregional’ category (classification II) to the ‘regional’ category (classification III).

Can the Commission state whether and to what extent it is aware of these conflicting facts and, if it is not aware of them, whether it intends to carry out on-the-spot investigations?

Answer given by Mr Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3)

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/455 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/455

---

(2004/C 84 E/0530)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3897/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   The costs of enlargement and the national contributions of the existing Member States

On 17 December 2002 the International Herald Tribune published a report under the headline ‘EU gets a “bargain” in expanding east’. In the article Thomas Fuller claimed that the real financial cost of expansion to the east was approximately EUR 10,3 million (USD 10,5 million), according to documents published by the Commission on 16 December. Furthermore, he said that Commissioner Schreyer had revealed how much each new Member State would receive and how much some of the present Member States would pay, in particular the United Kingdom.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | how much each of the new Member States will receive and how much each of the present Member States will pay in each of the first three years of enlargement, in other words the financial contribution of each of the Member States in the EU of 25 between 2004 and 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

how much each of the new Member States will receive and how much each of the present Member States will pay in each of the first three years of enlargement, in other words the financial contribution of each of the Member States in the EU of 25 between 2004 and 2006;

| 2. | how the sums made available for enlargement in accordance with the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council will be distributed for each of the new Member States year by year; |
| --- | --- |

2.

how the sums made available for enlargement in accordance with the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council will be distributed for each of the new Member States year by year;

| 3. | what it estimates the commercial gain will be for each of the current Member States, taking into account the forecast increase in exports and imports? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what it estimates the commercial gain will be for each of the current Member States, taking into account the forecast increase in exports and imports?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Based on the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council of 13 December 2002, the Commission has published on its Directorate General (DG) Enlargement website a table showing the total commitment appropriations of the agreed Copenhagen financial package for each of the years 2004, 2005 and2006. This table is available at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/pdf/financial_package.pdf).

The financial framework with the total commitment appropriations for each of the expenditure items agreed at Copenhagen and additionally, where appropriate, the breakdown by new Member States is also available on the same website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/pdf/financial_frame-work.pdf).

As concerns actual payment flows from the Community budget in favour of the new Member States in the period 2004-2006, as well as the expected contributions of the new Member States to the Community budget in the same period, this will depend on the future implementation of the Community budget. It is therefore impossible to predict exactly the level of these future transfers. However, based on a methodology used in the course of the accession negotiations for estimating future net budgetary positions, tables showing indicative estimated net balances for each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 for each of the new Member States are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

As regards the future contributions of the current Member States to the Community budget in the period 2004-2006, this is impossible to predict exactly, as, similar to the situation referred to in the previous paragraph, this will depend on a number of factors including the future implementation of the Community budget as well as rates of economic growth in the Member States. However, detailed information on the current Member States' shares in payments to the Community budget can be found in the following report: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pdf/agenda2000/report2001_en.pdf).

As regards the commercial gains to be expected from Union enlargement, it is clear that the whole process of enlargement has already brought major economic gains for both the current and future Member States as markets have gradually opened and trade increased significantly. The positive economic impact of enlargement is detailed in a Commission study published in 2001 and to be found on the DG Economic and Financial Affairs website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/enlarge-ment_papers/enlargementpapers04_en.htm).

A number of country specific studies on the costs and benefits of Union enlargement are available on the Commission's DG Budget website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/financing/enlargement_en.htm).

Enlargement is, of course, not simply a matter of weighing budgetary costs against commercial gain. Enlargement is a historic process, through which all participants stand to gain substantially in terms of increased security and stability across the continent.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/456

---

(2004/C 84 E/0531)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0160/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities

A civil engineer with a diploma from a UK university applied to the Greek centre for the recognition of foreign qualifications (Dikatsa) for recognition of his degree. Dikatsa approved the application on condition that the person concerned passed examinations in three subjects at a Greek polytechnic. After applying to take the examinations, he was informed that he could do so in 3-4 years' time! The explanation he was given for this situation was that only 20 people a year were examined. In the meantime, he has no other option but to work in a civil engineering firm under colleagues with equivalent qualifications and the same experience but higher salaries!

Do not such practices (which are obviously approved or tolerated by the Greek Ministry of Education) seriously undermine Community legislation on the recognition of diplomas in the EU and the principle of non-discrimination, and for purely administrative reasons? Will the Commission ask the Greek authorities to put an end to these delays in recognising degrees awarded by other Member States, which are caused purely by technicalities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The honourable Member's question prompts the following comments:

| — | First of all, a distinction must be made between recognition for academic and professional purposes. |
| --- | --- |

—

First of all, a distinction must be made between recognition for academic and professional purposes.

| — | With regard to the former type of recognition, the general aim is to allow those to whom it applies to continue their studies in another Member State or to make use of their academic qualification in that country. It should be pointed out that in accordance with the EC Treaty each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its own education system and that there are no Community provisions requiring the academic recognition of qualifications, provided that there is compliance with the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the former type of recognition, the general aim is to allow those to whom it applies to continue their studies in another Member State or to make use of their academic qualification in that country. It should be pointed out that in accordance with the EC Treaty each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its own education system and that there are no Community provisions requiring the academic recognition of qualifications, provided that there is compliance with the principle of non-discrimination.

| — | Recognition for professional purposes, however, is intended to permit those to whom it applies to exercise a regulated professional activity in a Member State other than that in which they have acquired their professional qualifications. This type of recognition is governed by Community law and, with specific reference to engineering qualifications, by Directive 89/48/EEC. In accordance with this directive, a person who does not possess a required national qualification cannot in principle be refused access, by the authorities of the host Member State, to a given profession on the territory of that Member State nor denied the right to exercise the profession, provided that in his Member State of origin he possesses the qualification which is required to access the same profession or which prepares him to exercise the profession. However, where there are substantial differences between the training acquired by the applicant and that required in the host Member State, the applicant may be required to undergo an adaptation period or to take an aptitude test in order to bridge the gap. |
| --- | --- |

—

Recognition for professional purposes, however, is intended to permit those to whom it applies to exercise a regulated professional activity in a Member State other than that in which they have acquired their professional qualifications. This type of recognition is governed by Community law and, with specific reference to engineering qualifications, by Directive 89/48/EEC. In accordance with this directive, a person who does not possess a required national qualification cannot in principle be refused access, by the authorities of the host Member State, to a given profession on the territory of that Member State nor denied the right to exercise the profession, provided that in his Member State of origin he possesses the qualification which is required to access the same profession or which prepares him to exercise the profession. However, where there are substantial differences between the training acquired by the applicant and that required in the host Member State, the applicant may be required to undergo an adaptation period or to take an aptitude test in order to bridge the gap.

| — | It should also be pointed out that the Commission has received several complaints about the improper application of Directive 89/48/EEC, in addition to certain aspects with regard to the incorrect transposition of the directive. The difficulties in applying the directive concern primarily the requirement of an academic qualification for enrolment in the Greek Technical Chamber and for appointment to posts in the civil service, and this has also affected people who have already obtained professional recognition of their qualifications in accordance with Directive 89/48/EEC. The fact is that such professional recognition must permit those to whom it applies to exercise the profession for which they are qualified under the same conditions as those who have gained their professional qualifications in Greece. Since Directive 89/48/EEC has to a considerable extent been rendered ineffective in Greece, the Commission decided at its meeting on 17 December 2002 to bring before the Court of Justice an action for non-compliance against Greece in connection with the improper transposition and application of Directive 89/48/EEC. |
| --- | --- |

—

It should also be pointed out that the Commission has received several complaints about the improper application of Directive 89/48/EEC, in addition to certain aspects with regard to the incorrect transposition of the directive. The difficulties in applying the directive concern primarily the requirement of an academic qualification for enrolment in the Greek Technical Chamber and for appointment to posts in the civil service, and this has also affected people who have already obtained professional recognition of their qualifications in accordance with Directive 89/48/EEC. The fact is that such professional recognition must permit those to whom it applies to exercise the profession for which they are qualified under the same conditions as those who have gained their professional qualifications in Greece. Since Directive 89/48/EEC has to a considerable extent been rendered ineffective in Greece, the Commission decided at its meeting on 17 December 2002 to bring before the Court of Justice an action for non-compliance against Greece in connection with the improper transposition and application of Directive 89/48/EEC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/457 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/457

---

(2004/C 84 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Duties on canned Asiatic tuna

The European canning industry, particularly in Galicia, is extremely concerned about the possible reductions in duties on canned tuna from the Philippines and Thailand which, it appears, may be being considered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Is the Commission aware of the damage this type of measure could cause to the European canning industry, in particular that of Galicia, at a time when Galicia is already burdened with huge economic problems owing to the ‘Prestige’ oil tanker accident?

What steps will the Commission take in order to prevent such a measure from being adopted?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the tuna canning industry in Galicia and appreciates the concern in relation to reduced tariffs for Community imports of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines. It also appreciates the difficulties being experienced in that region following the ‘Prestige’ accident.

The Honourable Member will recall that during the Doha Ministerial in November 2001, the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade agreed that the Community would enter into consultations to examine the claims of Thailand and the Philippines that the Community's preferential tariff (duty-free) for imports of canned tuna from the Afriacan, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States was causing undue impairment. The Member of the Commission also agreed that the Community would enter into mediation if the consultations failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. The Honourable Member will also recall that the Commission felt it necessary to take this action in order to secure the agreement of Thailand and the Philippines for a waiver that had been sought by the Community over many months for the Cotonou Agreement.

In January 2003 the Commission informed the Member States of the mediator's ‘opinion’ proposing that the Community should open a non-discriminatory quota of 25 000 tonnes at 12 % tariff rate. The Commission carefully examined the proposal and concluded that the quantity and duty rate suggested by the mediator was fair and reasonable and that it would not have an adverse economic effect on the Community market. It is worth recalling that 25 000 tonnes represents only 9 % of total imports and around 4 % of total consumption in the Community of canned tuna in 2001.

The Commission, therefore, intends making a formal proposal to the Council that the mediator's opinion should be accepted by the opening of a tariff quota as mentioned above.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/458 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/458

---

(2004/C 84 E/0533)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject:   Palestine: hatred spreads to football

The Palestine National Authority's daily newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadida recently reported extensively on a football tournament held in the Palestinian town of Tulkarem (located in the northern part of the West Bank), partly on account of the fact that the seven teams taking part (all made up of Palestinian youths) had adopted the names of seven shahid — the kamikaze Palestinian martyrs who carry out dynamite attacks in Israel.

Such a shameful and disgraceful choice of name is only one indication of the widespread approval enjoyed by the shahid.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Can it confirm the above report, which appeared in a number of European newspapers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it confirm the above report, which appeared in a number of European newspapers?

| 2. | Will it confirm whether or not the sports event in question, which was obviously intended to stir up further trouble by inciting young people to hatred and encouraging them to exalt false and dangerous heroes, received Community funding which should instead be used in order to promote social and other more tangible initiatives intended to facilitate cooperation and possibly bring about a reconciliation between the two peoples concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it confirm whether or not the sports event in question, which was obviously intended to stir up further trouble by inciting young people to hatred and encouraging them to exalt false and dangerous heroes, received Community funding which should instead be used in order to promote social and other more tangible initiatives intended to facilitate cooperation and possibly bring about a reconciliation between the two peoples concerned?

| 3. | Does it intend to condemn the event and to call upon the Palestinian Authority to ban any further events of a similar nature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it intend to condemn the event and to call upon the Palestinian Authority to ban any further events of a similar nature?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of press reports about a football tournament in Tulkarem referred to in the question of the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of press reports about a football tournament in Tulkarem referred to in the question of the Honourable Member.

| 2. | The Commission can confirm that the soccer tournament in question has not received Community funding. The Commission is unaware of any involvement or financial support of the Palestinian Authority in the aforementioned tournament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission can confirm that the soccer tournament in question has not received Community funding. The Commission is unaware of any involvement or financial support of the Palestinian Authority in the aforementioned tournament.

| 3. | The position of the Commission is clear. It roundly condemns all forms of violence and incitement to violence. The Union has pointed out the Palestinian Authority's responsibilities in fighting terrorism and will continue to press the Palestinian Authority, as the governing body responsible for maintaining law and order in the Palestinian territories. The Union has also called on the Palestinian Authority and Mr Arafat to take a clear position against incitement to hatred and violence. In this context the Union has welcomed, as a positive step, the Palestinian Authority's commitment in its Reform Action Plan of 25 June 2002‘to renounce fanaticism in the educational curricula and spread the spirit of democracy, enlightenment and openness on a wide scale.’ The Union will continue to press the Palestinian Authority in the context of these commitments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The position of the Commission is clear. It roundly condemns all forms of violence and incitement to violence. The Union has pointed out the Palestinian Authority's responsibilities in fighting terrorism and will continue to press the Palestinian Authority, as the governing body responsible for maintaining law and order in the Palestinian territories. The Union has also called on the Palestinian Authority and Mr Arafat to take a clear position against incitement to hatred and violence. In this context the Union has welcomed, as a positive step, the Palestinian Authority's commitment in its Reform Action Plan of 25 June 2002‘to renounce fanaticism in the educational curricula and spread the spirit of democracy, enlightenment and openness on a wide scale.’ The Union will continue to press the Palestinian Authority in the context of these commitments.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/459 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/459

---

(2004/C 84 E/0534)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/03

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject:   European Parliament resolution on the memorandum presented by the Commission to the Council on income taxation and equal treatment for men and women (A2-0055/85)

In its resolution A2-0055/85 (1) on the Commission memorandum on income taxation and equal treatment for men and women (2), the European Parliament refers to the fact that the national income taxation systems often hinder a woman's career and put married women in a less favourable tax position than unmarried women.

The European Parliament also states that one of the ways in which the goal of tax equality for men and women should be achieved is by means of measures put forward by the Commission. The memorandum, however, makes no mention of this kind of initiative.

The resolution also makes reference to Action 6 of the Commission's ‘Action Programme on the promotion of equal opportunities for women’, which provides for an analysis of the national taxation systems and for related measures.

An analysis of this kind is extremely desirable, especially as a review of the tax benefit systems in view of reducing disincentives for women forms one of the objectives of the Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001-2005).

Does the Commission now have the results of this analysis? Can the Commission make these results available? Have measures aimed at tax equality for men and women already been introduced?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that direct taxation is, in principle, an area that comes under the responsibility of the Member States. However, Member States must exercise this responsibility consistently with Community law (3).

The principle of equal treatment for men and women is definitely one of the fundamental principles of Community law, implying that the Member States must comply with this principle in their taxation legislation concerning income from employment, among other things.

In this area, the Commission, which ensures that Community law is applied, does not hesitate to bring proceedings against Member States, notably on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, when it observes violations of Article 141 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 119) that guarantees the principle of equal pay for women and men, in order to remove all forms of direct discrimination on grounds of sex and all indirect forms of discrimination, notably those stemming from differences of treatment due to the family or marital status of tax-payers that are not justified on grounds other than sex.

Moreover, the Commission financed a study on the impact of national taxation schemes on women's work, the 300-page report on which — in English — was finalised in February 2001 by Professor Paloma de Viliota. While the Commission cannot be held responsible for this excellent study produced by this independent expert, it is definitely a precious source of information and thoughts that is taken into consideration when implementing the Commission's initiatives and measures, especially those of a legislative nature.

The Honourable Member may consult this study on the site of the ‘Equality for Women and Men’ Unit of the Commission's Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/women_work.pdf).

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 9.9.1985, p. 128.

(2)  COM(84) 695.

(3)  See, in this connection, ‘inter alia’ the judgment of 14 February 1995 of the Court of Justice in the Schumacker case, C-279/93.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/460 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/460

---

(2004/C 84 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0661/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

Following the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha (Qatar) in November 2001, in the course of the negotiations intended to secure approval of the waiver needed for the EU to be granted authorisation allowing it to maintain tariff preferences with the ACP countries, Thailand and the Philippines made their votes conditional upon improved access for their tinned tuna to the Community market. The Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, undertook merely to hold a series of consultations on the subject, which concluded without any agreement and with the EU proposing to go through a mediation process before the WTO, a procedure which is not legally binding. Following the mediation, the mediator, Mr Rufus Yerxa, proposed the possible opening of a quota of 25 000 tonnes of tinned tuna as a finished product at a 12 % tariff. A considerable period of time has elapsed since the Doha Ministerial Conference, and the European Union currently intends to adopt a regulation accepting the proposal put forward by the mediator, against the opposition of the two main tinned tuna-producing countries in the European Union, as well as the opposition of the entire EU tuna-fishing and tuna-processing and canning industry.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what studies it has carried out to assess the impact which the opening of this quota will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union? If no such studies have been carried out, does the Commission not consider that, before granting any type of preferences to third countries, an impact assessment should be carried out to evaluate the effects which this measure will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union and on the workers employed in these sectors in the Community? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what studies it has carried out to assess the impact which the opening of this quota will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union? If no such studies have been carried out, does the Commission not consider that, before granting any type of preferences to third countries, an impact assessment should be carried out to evaluate the effects which this measure will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union and on the workers employed in these sectors in the Community?

| 2. | Can the Commission say whether the commitment given by Commissioner Lamy in Doha was solely to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission say whether the commitment given by Commissioner Lamy in Doha was solely to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines?

| 3. | On this subject, Commissioner Lamy has stated that the only commitment given was to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines. Can the Commission therefore explain why the European Union would lose credibility if it did not grant preferences to Thailand and the Philippines, if there was no commitment other than to open consultations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

On this subject, Commissioner Lamy has stated that the only commitment given was to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines. Can the Commission therefore explain why the European Union would lose credibility if it did not grant preferences to Thailand and the Philippines, if there was no commitment other than to open consultations?

| 4. | Can the Commission explain why, if the mediation process is a procedure which is not binding on the parties and it was established in the course of the European Union's consultations with Thailand and the Philippines that there was no need to grant any type of tariff preference for the parties, it has now become necessary to grant a tariff concession to Thailand and the Philippines? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission explain why, if the mediation process is a procedure which is not binding on the parties and it was established in the course of the European Union's consultations with Thailand and the Philippines that there was no need to grant any type of tariff preference for the parties, it has now become necessary to grant a tariff concession to Thailand and the Philippines?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Prior to deciding to recommend the adoption of the Mediator's proposal that the Community should open a quota of 25 000 tons of canned tuna at 12 % duty, the Commission examined the proposal closely. The Commission analysed all the information at its disposal concerning the industry and Community trade in the product. It examined the potential effects on trade in canned tuna and on the sector as a whole, giving due weight to the concerns and interests of the Community industry, but also examined the possible effect on its relations with Thailand, Philippines and other World Trade Organisation (WTO) members of rejecting the Mediator's opinion. Following that analysis, the Commission decided to recommend to Member States that the Mediator's opinion be adopted. The Commission, therefore, considers that it would not be necessary to carry out further analysis such as an impact study of the type referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0162/03 (1) for a full explanation of the commitment of the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade at Doha but would remind the Honourable Member that, from the outset, the Community agreed to enter into mediation if consultations on the matter failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Commission considers that the credibility of the Community in the WTO would be seriously damaged if the mediator's opinion is not adopted as the Community has consistently been a keen advocate for respect and application of WTO rules and procedures.

---

(1)  See page 457.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/461 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/461

---

(2004/C 84 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Violations of Community law in EU Member States

Could the Commission provide a comparative table showing the violations of Community law committed by each EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's Nineteenth annual report to Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law (2001) (1).

---

(1)  COM(2002) 324 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/462 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/462

---

(2004/C 84 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject:   Purchase of Corus by Outokumpu

Following the purchase by the Finnish company Outokumpu of the stainless steel business of the Anglo-Dutch company Corus, will the Commission say what action it took to ensure that the purchase did not create an over-concentration of ownership in this industrial sector?

What effect on competition and employment in the sector does the Commission think the purchase will have?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

As there is no single operation that can be regarded as the purchase of Corus's stainless steel business by Outokumpu it may be useful to outline the main developments in the process. Between 1992 and 1994 there was a series of operations through which British Steel plc acquired joint control with Swedish investment institutions of Avesta Sheffield a company combining British Steel's stainless steel business with the Swedish stainless steel producer, Avesta. Subsequently, the Swedish institutions withdrew in two stages so that by the end of 1994 British Steel plc had sole control of Avesta Sheffield.

In 2000 Corus and Outokumpu notified a concentration to the Commission which would combine their respective stainless steel businesses in Avesta Polarit. This operation was cleared on 4 December 2000 under both the ECSC Treaty and the Merger Regulation (1). After an extensive first phase investigation the Commission concluded that the concentration would not give rise to competition problems. The clearance decisions (2) are available on Directorate General Competition's web site.

The final operation occurred on 28 August 2002 when the Commission authorised the acquisition by Outokumpu of sole control of Avesta Polarit through the purchase of Corus's minority interest (3). This operation had no direct effect on either competition or employment as it involved only a change from joint control by Coras and Outokumpu to sole control by Outokumpu. Outokumpu subsequently bought out the remaining minority shareholders.

In assessing the effects of the concentrations falling within its jurisdiction the Commission is required by the Merger Regulation (4) to base its analysis on competition considerations. It does not therefore directly consider the effects of a particular operation on employment. However stable long-term employment is best served by competitive companies operating on a level playing field, conditions which Community competition policy fosters.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 24 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2)  COMP/M.2180 - Outokumpu/Avesta and COMP/ECSC.1342 - Outokumpu/Avesta.

(3)  COMP/M.2900 - Outokumpu/Avesta Polarit.

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/462 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/462

---

(2004/C 84 E/0538)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, the independent republic bordering the Caspian Sea, which is seeking closer relations with the EU, has serious internal problems of an economic and humanitarian nature. One million people are currently refugees in their own country because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Armenian-occupied areas. Many of these refugees are therefore forced to live in wretched conditions in various camps.

In the hope that the Commission is aware of the conditions under which these people are living, I would ask what the EU has done hitherto to resolve the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and relieve the human suffering and, specifically, what funds the EU has allocated in direct aid to the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission is acutely aware of the difficult conditions under which people (internally displaced people and refugees) are living in Azerbaijan as a consequence of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Union's policy to the region is defined in the General Affairs Council conclusions of its 2 331st meeting in Brussels 26/27 February 2001. The Council concluded:

| | The Ministerial Troika visit to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan on 20/21 February 2001 demonstrated the importance the EU attaches to strengthening relations with the Southern Caucasus, with a view to promoting peace, stability, prosperity and regional cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

The Ministerial Troika visit to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan on 20/21 February 2001 demonstrated the importance the EU attaches to strengthening relations with the Southern Caucasus, with a view to promoting peace, stability, prosperity and regional cooperation.

| | The EU is willing to play a more active political role in the region. The Council welcomes the warm reception received from the three countries by the Troika visit, perceived as a sign of the EU's continued commitment to the region. All supported a stronger EU role in the Southern Caucasus. In close co-operation with the parties, competent international organisations and the countries of the region, the EU will look for further ways in which it could support efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts as well as in post conflict rehabilitation in the region. Special attention should be given to strengthening the co-operation with the OSCE, the UN and the Council of Europe. |
| --- | --- |

The EU is willing to play a more active political role in the region. The Council welcomes the warm reception received from the three countries by the Troika visit, perceived as a sign of the EU's continued commitment to the region. All supported a stronger EU role in the Southern Caucasus. In close co-operation with the parties, competent international organisations and the countries of the region, the EU will look for further ways in which it could support efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts as well as in post conflict rehabilitation in the region. Special attention should be given to strengthening the co-operation with the OSCE, the UN and the Council of Europe.

| | In this context, the EU will reinforce the bilateral and multilateral political dialogue with the countries of the Southern Caucasus. It will also intensify the political dialogue about the region with Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States. |
| --- | --- |

In this context, the EU will reinforce the bilateral and multilateral political dialogue with the countries of the Southern Caucasus. It will also intensify the political dialogue about the region with Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States.

| | The EU is continuing its support to the region, in close co-ordination with the relevant international organisations and the IFIs. The effectiveness of its assistance, however, is connected to the development of the peace processes in the region. |
| --- | --- |

The EU is continuing its support to the region, in close co-ordination with the relevant international organisations and the IFIs. The effectiveness of its assistance, however, is connected to the development of the peace processes in the region.

The Commission works within this overall policy.

Community funds committed to the region (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia) total over EUR 1 billion between 1992 and 2003. A total of EUR 399 674 million have been allocated directly to Azerbaijan since 1992. Of this total some EUR 254 569 million (51,6 %) were allocated to humanitarian and reconstruction actions — EUR 157,82 million were allocated to humanitarian assistance (39,5 % of the total) and EUR 48 374 million on post conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction activities (12,1 %).

Funds have also been allocated under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) to regional projects for the benefit of the three South Caucasian states. Two complementary Joint Programmes with the Council of Europe and the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), focussing on conflict prevention and strengthening of democratic stability, have been financed under this budget line. In addition, the Commission is working with non-governmental organisations NGOs) in the region, notably to combat discrimination against certain minority groups.

Poverty alleviation is the primary focus for current and future Tacis and Food Security Programmes in all countries of the Southern Caucasus.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/464 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/464

---

(2004/C 84 E/0539)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Delayed recognition of diplomas owing to technicalities

In a recent question (E-0160/03) (1), I asked the Commission to state its views on the unreasonable delays on the part of the Greek authorities in examining applicants for the purpose of recognising their diplomas awarded by other Member States.

However, the reply received from the Commission (7 March 2003) does not appear to answer that question but is extended to cover the implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC (2). Could the Commission therefore answer the question concerning the delays alone?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

There are two types of procedures for recognition of qualifications and they have different objectives: the academic recognition procedure and the professional recognition procedure.

Professional recognition was covered by the first reply of the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0160/03 (1).

Academic recognition aims to allow people to pursue their studies in another Member State or to use the academic title of another Member State corresponding to their diploma.

At the present stage of development of Community law, the recognition of diplomas for academic purposes falls within the competence of Member States. There are no Community rules imposing mutual recognition of diplomas. Each Member State is responsible for its own educational system and for the content and organisation of its educational system. There are currently no diplomas that are recognised at European level. Universities that are autonomous institutions are entirely responsible for the content of their curricula and for awarding diplomas and certificates to students.

The authorities of the Member States have the right to require the academic recognition of qualifications before allowing access to education and they can evaluate whether the content of the education received by the holder of a diploma corresponds to the level that is required by the national legislation. They are equally free to fix the rules governing this type of procedure. They are obliged, however, not to apply any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality, in accordance with Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

The civil engineer to whom the Honourable Member refers is a Greek national who has studied in the United Kingdom.

Dikatsa is the competent authority in Greece for the academic recognition of diplomas.

Although, as stated above, the academic recognition of diplomas falls within the competence of the Member States, it should be examined whether the excessive delays caused by administrative reasons in the academic recognition procedure in Greece may discourage students or professionals wishing to use the academic title of another Member State from exercising their right to free movement. In this case, the excessive length of the academic procedure could pose obstacles to the free movement of students or prevent migrating professionals from having the advantages linked to the use of the academic title of the host Member State.

Freedom to move within the territories of the Member States is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (Article 18).

Article 8 of the EC Treaty confers the status of citizen of the Union to every person holding the nationality of a Member State. Hence, the civil engineer, who is of Greek nationality, is a citizen of the Union. As stated by the European Court of Justice (3):

| | a citizen of the Union must be granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation. It would, therefore, be incompatible with the right of free movement were a citizen, in a Member State of which he is a national, to receive treatment less favourable than he would enjoy if he had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement. |
| --- | --- |

a citizen of the Union must be granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation. It would, therefore, be incompatible with the right of free movement were a citizen, in a Member State of which he is a national, to receive treatment less favourable than he would enjoy if he had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement.

| | Those opportunities could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised on his return to his country of origin ... |
| --- | --- |

Those opportunities could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles raised on his return to his country of origin ...

Article 149(2) of the EC Treaty aims to encourage the mobility of students.

On the basis of the above-mentioned considerations, the Commission will contact the Greek Authorities to ask for the reasons for the excessive delays in their academic recognition procedure. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of the evolution of this file.

---

(1)  See page 456.

(2)  OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(3)  Case C-224/98 (D'Hoop).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/465 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/465

---

(2004/C 84 E/0540)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   Provisions enacted by the Italian Government with regard to electromagnetic pollution

September 2002 marked the entry into force in Italy of Legislative Decree No 198/2002 laying down provisions to accelerate the construction of the strategic telecommunications infrastructures for the modernisation and development of that country. The decree sets out the basic principles governing the installation of telecommunications infrastructures with the aim of liberalising the telecommunications market and making it competitive, rationalising authorisation procedures in line with the principles of efficiency, publicity, concentration and rapidity, ensuring respect for the environment and for health and pursuing quality targets.

The decree, which derives from Framework Law No 36/2001 on protection from exposure to electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, is intended to resolve the controversial issue of the spatial distribution of telecommunications masts, which are primary sources of electromagnetic pollution and which until now have not been governed by any detailed or specific legislation. The decree therefore aims to promote technological development by simplifying installation authorisation procedures, while also setting out to protect the environment, human health and historical and artistic heritage by awarding each competent local authority powers of veto in the event of telecommunications operators failing to comply with the provisions safeguarding these assets. The decree also introduces a national register of electromagnetic sources of industrial origin, for systematic monitoring of the masts installed, with the aim of establishing hard and fast rules for curbing the installation of unauthorised masts, or in other words the possibility of operators installing masts as and where they like.

The limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields laid down in the legislation are the lowest in Europe and in the world (6 V/m for all wavelengths). However, the need to guarantee free market conditions under which operators can provide innovative services to citizens and users must also be borne in mind. In the light of the positive initial results of the electrosmog monitoring that the Ministry of Communications has recently launched in Italy, and in view of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields and Commissioner Byrne's reply to my earlier question (E-2648/99 (2)) on pollution by electromagnetic waves,

Can the Commission indicate:

| 1. | what its position is with regard to Legislative Decree 198/2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what its position is with regard to Legislative Decree 198/2002;

| 2. | whether, in particular, it considers this legislation to be apt to guarantee the protection of health, the environment and historical and artistic heritage, while also meeting the requirements of the free market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether, in particular, it considers this legislation to be apt to guarantee the protection of health, the environment and historical and artistic heritage, while also meeting the requirements of the free market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

On 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EC limiting the exposure of the general public to non-ionising radiation with a view to protecting human health in a frequency range of 0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (Ghz) which covers devices mentioned by the Honourable Member. These limits also ensure adequate protection of patients with medical implants.

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity-Ecotoxicity and the Environment confirmed on 30 November 2001 that: ‘the additional information which has become available on carcinogenic and other non-thermal effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation frequencies in the last years does not justify a revision of exposure limits set by the Commission’.

Following this advice the Commission does not intend to change these limits. In the context of reviewing the Council Recommendation, the Commission will prepare a report, by 2004, taking into account the reports of the Member States and the latest scientific data and advice. The Commission will react to any scientific risks not taken into consideration to date in the present set of recommended limits.

Recommendations differ from Directives: they are not binding. Nonetheless, Union Directives ensuring the internal market for products base themselves on the limits recommended by the Council. Under these Directives, notably the Low Voltage Directive (3) and the Radio and Telecommunication Terminal Equipment Directive (4) the Commission mandated the European Standardisation Organisations to draft safety standards for products, including installation and in-situ measurement standards. The aim of these standards is to ensure that, when installed for their intended purpose, the exposure of the public remains below the limits recommended by the Council. This leaves the task of the Member States to ensure that adequate health protection measures are taken which may include dismantling operations if estimated necessary by national or local authorities or exclusion zones in the vicinity of hospitals or schools. Such measures shouldn't, however, constitute a barrier to trade and thus not be counter to these Directives.

The Commission observes that, in response to concerns expressed by the public, there is pressure to dismantle or move GSM base stations, even in the absence of compelling scientific reasons to do so. Measurements in Member States, including Italy, have confirmed that exposure levels are in general orders of magnitude below recommended values, including the level in the Italian legislation. This level is a factor of 7 to 10 below that recommended by the Council and in practice has the effect of creating a marginally larger exclusion zone around a base station. These safety zones are normally between 5-10 metres in a vertical plane in front of an antenna and one metrer horizontal. Since exposure drops with the square of the distance, lowering the safety level will increase this zone by a factor of around 2,5 to 3,5.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 93.

(3)  Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(4)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/467

---

(2004/C 84 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1271/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva in Cuba

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the human rights activist, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, who has been detained in prison in Cuba since 5 March 2002 under inhumane conditions and has still not been brought before a court? (See questions E-1458/02, E-1467/02 (1), E-3646/02 (2)).

What action has been taken by the EU recently in Mr Gonzalez Leiva's case and what response has this elicited from the Cuban authorities?

Is the Commission prepared to make stronger representations in the dialogue between the EU and Cuba on human rights issues and will it examine whether the violation of human rights is having a bearing on the Union's common position on Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-3646/02 (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 109.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/467

---

(2004/C 84 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Further development of European legislation on car emissions

Now that Directive 98/69/EC (1) has come into force and new cars are equipped accordingly, the question arises as to the further development of EU legislation on car emissions. Community air quality policy calls in particular for a further reduction in NOx and particles. It seems that the technology already exists for significantly reducing particle values in diesel engines. And the question of ultrafine particles in modern diesel-injection petrol engines seems to be developing into a new problem area.

| 1. | What preliminary work has been down on a further stage in car emission legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What preliminary work has been down on a further stage in car emission legislation?

| 2. | Does the Commission plan a Euro V stage for 2008 with further reductions of NOx and particles, with particular attention being given to ultrafine particles? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission plan a Euro V stage for 2008 with further reductions of NOx and particles, with particular attention being given to ultrafine particles?

| 3. | When will the Commission be presenting a proposal for a Euro V stage? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When will the Commission be presenting a proposal for a Euro V stage?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission is working towards the development of a Euro V standard for the light-duty vehicles covered by the scope of Directive 98/69/EC (2). The main emphasis will be on the reduction of Nitrogen oxides (Nox) and particulate emissions. The control of ultra-fine particulates, due to their perceived association with human health effects, is a priority, not only for diesel engines but also for gasoline direct-injection engines where there are concerns to be addressed. The development of new laboratory methods for measuring ultra-fine particulates is progressing well under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) but there is still some way to go before a rigorous and reliable test method is available for the purposes of type-approving vehicles for their exhaust emissions.

The impacts of measures aiming at a Euro V standard will also have to be assessed taking into account the elements of sustainable development.

The Commission intends that the Euro V stage would apply from the end of the decade for the various categories of vehicles within the scope of Directive 98/69/EC, respecting the same five-year period of legislative stability set by the institutions between the Euro III and Euro IV stages.

A proposal could be expected to be adopted by the Commission at the end of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 98/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC, OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/468 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/468

---

(2004/C 84 E/0543)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   EU agriculture subsidies and elimination of local producers

The Swedish media recently reported that the Swedish-Danish dairy company Arla had dumped several thousand tonnes of powdered milk in the Dominican Republic, thereby eliminating some 15 000 local producers from the market and depriving them of their means of making a living. Aria's annual exports of powdered milk are aided by SEK 160 million from EU export subsidies. Unfortunately, Aria's subsidised exports are no exception; several different cases of a similar nature constitute a clear pattern.

What view does the Commission take of a procedure whereby companies such as Arla, with the aid of EU subsidies, can contribute to product dumping of this kind and what steps has it taken to ensure that such cases can be avoided?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Trade between the Union and the Dominican Republic takes place in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) following the Uruguay Round (UR) of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Community and the Dominican Republic on import protection for milk powder in the Dominican Republic.

The Memorandum of Understanding (1) was adopted by the European Council in July 1998 and the Dominican Republic Presidential Decree No 505/99 of 24 November 1999 provided for the implementation of the new WTO Schedule in the Dominican Republic. To protect local production and at the same time ensure sufficient supply for consumers at reasonable prices, the Dominican Republic in its new WTO Schedule, established a tariff rate quota of 32 000 tons of milk powder of which 70 % for the Community and 15 % each for New Zealand and other suppliers. In that context, there have been regular imports of Community milk powder in the Dominican Republic.

In the Dominican Republic milk production has been increasing by between 4 % and 6 % per year but while farm production costs range from 4-6 DOP/litre, (Dominican Republic Peso) the processors pay producers 6,75 DOP/litre, the retailers pay processors 17 to 18 DOP/litre of pasteurized milk and the consumer pays upwards of 20 DOP/litre. The retail prices of Community milk powders in the Dominican Republic are higher than those practiced for other imported powders and for domestically produced powders. The data available to the Commission confirm, therefore, that its export policy in relation to the Dominican Republic is reasonable and responsible.

A report on the Dairy Market in the Dominican Republic published by the United States Department of Agriculture in 2001 (2) estimated that there were approximately 59 000 milk producers in the Dominican Republic of which 17 500 specialise in milk production and the rest in cattle raising for the twofold purpose of producing milk and beef. But as in all countries in the world, restructuring is taking place in the Dominican Republic at both producer and processor levels, which translates into a continuous decrease of the numbers of producers. As for the Community, the number of producers has fallen in the past ten years by about 50 %.

Regarding local milk production in the Dominican Republic, the report suggests that a number of structural problems relating to an unreliable energy supply, concentration on the market and problems of quality, among other things, hamper the development of local milk production rather than imports.

The Commission maintains regular contact with the authorities in the Dominican Republic concerning the application of the Memorandum of Understanding and also requested periodically (June 2002, December 2002 and February 2003) price information on milk powders, both domestically produced and imported. The Dominican Republic authorities have not made any representations suggesting that imports from the Community are hampering the development or negatively affecting prices to the detriment of local dairy farmers and thus indirectly the development of national milk production. Furthermore, the Commission has offered technical support to develop the dairy sector. Such proposal triggered a request from the Dominican Republic authorities to finance a study on current situation and future perspectives of the dairy sector in the Dominican Republic (in preparation).

The Community pays subsidies on exports depending on the gap between prices practiced on the internal market and quotations on the world market, within the ceilings on export subsidies set out in the Community's WTO schedule. In that framework, export refunds on skimmed milk powder (SMP) and on whole milk powder (WMP) intended for supply to the Dominican Republic under the quota are fixed at lower levels than for exports to other destinations. The gap between the refund for the Dominican Republic and other destinations has been widened even further for the 2003/2004 quota year by decreasing the Dominican Republic refund.

As for the future, the Community has made it clear that it is ready to further reduce export subsidies, on the condition that all other forms of export assistance are subject to equivalent disciplines. These commitments are further reflected in its paper on modalities for the agricultural negotiations under the WTO. Actually, export subsidies are becoming less and less significant, falling from 25 % of the value of Community farm exports in 1992 to 5,2 % in 2001.

Finally, it should be noted that when there have been negative impacts resulting from its exports, as it was the case of beef exports to West Africa in the 1980s, the Community has reacted, in some cases by discontinuing refunds for certain products. However, experience shows that when the Community stops providing export subsidies for a particular market, the Community's market share is frequently taken over by products from other developed countries, which create similar market challenges to local producers.

---

(1)  Council Decision 98/486/EC, OJ L 218, 6.8.1998.

(2)  Ph.D. Wagner A. Méndez and Ph.D. Ruben D. Núñez: The dairy market in the Dominican Republic 2001'. United States Department of Agriculture 2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/470 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/470

---

(2004/C 84 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1511/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject:   Financial corrections

In reply to point 2.57 of the Court of Auditors Annual report for 2001 (1), the Commission states that ‘as part of the follow-up to the 2001 clearance process the Commission services have informed the Portuguese authorities that a financial correction of 2 % of Ifadap expenditure is proposed (EUR 2,8 million)’.

Will the Commission provide the report it based this decision?

Will it also provide the IT audit report of Portuguese paying agencies mentioned in point 2.59 of the Court of Auditors report, as well as any other audit reports which the Commission carried out in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The financial correction proposed by the Commission in the case of the Portuguese paying agency Instituto Financeiro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento da Agricultura e Pescas (Ifadap) is based on analysis of the report by the 2001 EAGGF financial year by the certifying body (in this case the Inspectorate-General for Finance) under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (2), and corresponds to extrapolation of the errors that body found. Commission officials visited Ifadap from 16 to 20 September 2002 to develop the extrapolation and carry out a general audit covering accreditation of Ifadap as a paying agency.

The clearance procedure in connection with imposition of this financial correction has not yet been completed.

The Court of Auditors' 2001 annual report (3) also mentions, as the Honourable Member indicates, a series of computer system audits of paying agencies. In the case of Portugal only the Nacional de Intervençao e Garanta Agricola (INGA) was included.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 deals with public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents (4). The Commission will examine the Honourable Member's request under the procedure specified therein.

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that under the Framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission, signed on 5 July 2000, the President of Parliament, the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents can ask for confidential information from the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 58.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158, 8.7.1995.

(3)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002.

(4)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/471 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/471

---

(2004/C 84 E/0545)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Criticism of the active involvement of the Flemish government in environmental rehabilitation, allegedly in breach of the promotion of free competition

| 1. | On 16 October 2002 the Commission made a complaint against the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner, such as Vlaamse Milieuholding, Aquafin NV (water treatment), Indaver (industrial and household waste), Vlaamse Afvalrecuperatiemaatschappij (recycling) and Hooge Maey's environmental rehabilitation company in Antwerp, which implement 90 % of Flemish environmental policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 October 2002 the Commission made a complaint against the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner, such as Vlaamse Milieuholding, Aquafin NV (water treatment), Indaver (industrial and household waste), Vlaamse Afvalrecuperatiemaatschappij (recycling) and Hooge Maey's environmental rehabilitation company in Antwerp, which implement 90 % of Flemish environmental policy?

| 2. | Is Herman Matthijs, profession of economics at the Free Universities Brussels, correct in saying that the United Kingdom is the only EU Member State to satisfy the Commission's vision of the liberalisation of services of general interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Herman Matthijs, profession of economics at the Free Universities Brussels, correct in saying that the United Kingdom is the only EU Member State to satisfy the Commission's vision of the liberalisation of services of general interest?

| 3. | Is the Commission considering bringing proceedings in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which is likely to result in large fines having to be paid at the expense of the EUR 7,5 billion budgeted for improved water treatment in Flanders, because other European companies were unable to participate in the public invitation to tender after the contracts awarded by the Flemish government? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission considering bringing proceedings in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which is likely to result in large fines having to be paid at the expense of the EUR 7,5 billion budgeted for improved water treatment in Flanders, because other European companies were unable to participate in the public invitation to tender after the contracts awarded by the Flemish government?

| 4. | Is the Commission in discussions with the Flemish government with a view to finding other solutions? What has been the outcome? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission in discussions with the Flemish government with a view to finding other solutions? What has been the outcome?

Sources: De Standard, 9 and 10 April 2003, De Morgen, 10 April 2003, De Financiëel Economische Tijd, 10 April 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

| 1. | By letter of formal notice of 16 October 2002, the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without a priori invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. Contrary to what the Honourable Member seems to say, the Commission's complaint did not therefore relate to ‘the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By letter of formal notice of 16 October 2002, the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without a priori invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. Contrary to what the Honourable Member seems to say, the Commission's complaint did not therefore relate to ‘the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems through companies of which it is the owner or part-owner’.

| 2. | The Commission takes no responsibility for what the Honourable Member says. It has, on a number of occasions (1), voiced the opinion that services of general interest play a key role in the development of a European social model and that the Member States remain free to define services of general interest and how to organise them. However, it has to be ensured that any restrictions to applying the rules of the EC Treaty, and particularly restrictions on competition and limitations of the internal market freedoms, do not exceed what is strictly necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the general interest mission. In particular, when the Member States decide to entrust the management of such services to a third party, the choice of third party should be made in accordance with the rules and principles of Community public procurement law. In this context, it should be pointed out that the College has recently adopted a Green Paper on services of general interest (Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest), which relays the Commission's thoughts on this matter and invites all interested parties to submit their opinions and suggestions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission takes no responsibility for what the Honourable Member says. It has, on a number of occasions (1), voiced the opinion that services of general interest play a key role in the development of a European social model and that the Member States remain free to define services of general interest and how to organise them. However, it has to be ensured that any restrictions to applying the rules of the EC Treaty, and particularly restrictions on competition and limitations of the internal market freedoms, do not exceed what is strictly necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the general interest mission. In particular, when the Member States decide to entrust the management of such services to a third party, the choice of third party should be made in accordance with the rules and principles of Community public procurement law. In this context, it should be pointed out that the College has recently adopted a Green Paper on services of general interest (Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest), which relays the Commission's thoughts on this matter and invites all interested parties to submit their opinions and suggestions.

| 3. | The proceedings initiated by the Commission against the Belgian State, which are mentioned by the Honourable Member, are currently still at the pre-litigation stage. The arguments put forward by both parties form the subject of a dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities. In any event, the Community public procurement legislation does not make it possible for the Commission to impose fines at its own initiative on Member States for failure to comply with the applicable provisions. As Community public procurement law stands at present, it is only through referral to the Court under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) that the Court may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on a Member State which does not comply with one of its judgments. However, as stated above, the proceedings initiated by the Commission in this instance are currently only at the pre-litigation stage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The proceedings initiated by the Commission against the Belgian State, which are mentioned by the Honourable Member, are currently still at the pre-litigation stage. The arguments put forward by both parties form the subject of a dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities. In any event, the Community public procurement legislation does not make it possible for the Commission to impose fines at its own initiative on Member States for failure to comply with the applicable provisions. As Community public procurement law stands at present, it is only through referral to the Court under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) that the Court may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on a Member State which does not comply with one of its judgments. However, as stated above, the proceedings initiated by the Commission in this instance are currently only at the pre-litigation stage.

| 4. | As the dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities is still being conducted, it would be premature to make any pronouncements about what the outcome might be. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As the dialogue with the competent Belgian authorities is still being conducted, it would be premature to make any pronouncements about what the outcome might be.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 26.9.1996 and OJ C 17, 19.1.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/472 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/472

---

(2004/C 84 E/0546)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Solutions for environmental problems in Flanders without increasing dependence on private firms

| 1. | Does the Commission's criticism of the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems relate exclusively to the advantages secured by firms operating in free market, including private firms employed by the Flemish government, because of the absence of competition? Are fines to be imposed? What will happen if the firms are declared bankrupt in the meantime? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission's criticism of the significant involvement of the Flemish government since 1990 in tackling environmental problems relate exclusively to the advantages secured by firms operating in free market, including private firms employed by the Flemish government, because of the absence of competition? Are fines to be imposed? What will happen if the firms are declared bankrupt in the meantime?

| 2. | How can governments, who are responsible for dealing with environmental problems, guard themselves against the efforts of private firms to take over some of their tasks under worse conditions, such as road transport instead of transport by water or restricting their activities to those which are profitable? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How can governments, who are responsible for dealing with environmental problems, guard themselves against the efforts of private firms to take over some of their tasks under worse conditions, such as road transport instead of transport by water or restricting their activities to those which are profitable?

| 3. | How can governments keep down the cost of carrying out environmental improvements by avoiding dependence on private companies who see environmental rehabilitation as a valuable market but not as an essential objective? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How can governments keep down the cost of carrying out environmental improvements by avoiding dependence on private companies who see environmental rehabilitation as a valuable market but not as an essential objective?

| 4. | Could the problem raised by the Commission be solved if the legal status of the Flemish firms concerned were to be changed from companies with some private shareholders into government services for which the Flemish government, including the Flemish provinces and Flemish intercommunal associations, bear full liability? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Could the problem raised by the Commission be solved if the legal status of the Flemish firms concerned were to be changed from companies with some private shareholders into government services for which the Flemish government, including the Flemish provinces and Flemish intercommunal associations, bear full liability?

Sources: De Standard, 9 April and 10 April 2003, De Morgen, 10 April 2003, De Financiëel Economische Tijd, 10 April 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

| 1. | As indicated in the answer to Written Question E-l570/03 from Mr Meijer (1), the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without prior invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. A dialogue is being conducted with the Belgian authorities in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. It is only if the Belgian authorities should refuse to comply with Community law throughout the entire infringement procedure that the matter would be referred to the Court of Justice under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) and the Court could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Belgian authorities. In the meantime, the possible bankruptcy of certain firms involved in this dossier does not seem to be a relevant factor in the analysis conducted by the Commission, which seeks to ensure compliance with Community law and thus require of the Belgian authorities that, when they decide to entrust the conduct of certain economic activities to a third party, the choice of this third party is made after a competitive tendering process. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As indicated in the answer to Written Question E-l570/03 from Mr Meijer (1), the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without prior invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. A dialogue is being conducted with the Belgian authorities in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. It is only if the Belgian authorities should refuse to comply with Community law throughout the entire infringement procedure that the matter would be referred to the Court of Justice under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) and the Court could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Belgian authorities. In the meantime, the possible bankruptcy of certain firms involved in this dossier does not seem to be a relevant factor in the analysis conducted by the Commission, which seeks to ensure compliance with Community law and thus require of the Belgian authorities that, when they decide to entrust the conduct of certain economic activities to a third party, the choice of this third party is made after a competitive tendering process.

| 2. | In his second question, the Honourable Member asks how governments can guard themselves against poorer environmental conditions which might be applied by private enterprises. In response, it should be noted that the contracting authorities may, within the context of the public contracts which they award and subject to certain conditions, take ecological criteria into consideration, provided that these are linked to the subject-matter of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In his second question, the Honourable Member asks how governments can guard themselves against poorer environmental conditions which might be applied by private enterprises. In response, it should be noted that the contracting authorities may, within the context of the public contracts which they award and subject to certain conditions, take ecological criteria into consideration, provided that these are linked to the subject-matter of the contract.

| 3. | Through his third question, the Honourable Member wishes to find out how governments can keep down the costs of applying environmental measures whilst avoiding dependence on private companies. On this topic, it should be pointed out that the correct application of public procurement legislation should allow proper competitive tendering and thus find the tender offering the best value for money, whilst enabling environmental considerations to be taken into account under the conditions mentioned above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Through his third question, the Honourable Member wishes to find out how governments can keep down the costs of applying environmental measures whilst avoiding dependence on private companies. On this topic, it should be pointed out that the correct application of public procurement legislation should allow proper competitive tendering and thus find the tender offering the best value for money, whilst enabling environmental considerations to be taken into account under the conditions mentioned above.

| 4. | In his fourth question, the Honourable Member wishes to know whether the problem raised by the Commission could be solved by transforming the companies responsible for carrying out environmental work into government services. This question seems to refer to the problem of ‘in house’ relations, which would fall outside the scope of public procurement rules. The Court of Justice has, however, explained with regard to this matter that the rules on public procurement always apply when the State or public authority (acting as the contracting authority) assigns the provision of a service to a third party, except in exceptional situations in which the contracting authority exercises over the body concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and that body carries out the essential part of its activities with the contracting authority. The obligation to issue a prior invitation to tender could not therefore be evaded simply by taking a 100 % holding in a company (‘Teckal’ judgment of 18 November 1999 in Case C-107/98). |
| --- | --- |

4.

In his fourth question, the Honourable Member wishes to know whether the problem raised by the Commission could be solved by transforming the companies responsible for carrying out environmental work into government services. This question seems to refer to the problem of ‘in house’ relations, which would fall outside the scope of public procurement rules. The Court of Justice has, however, explained with regard to this matter that the rules on public procurement always apply when the State or public authority (acting as the contracting authority) assigns the provision of a service to a third party, except in exceptional situations in which the contracting authority exercises over the body concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and that body carries out the essential part of its activities with the contracting authority. The obligation to issue a prior invitation to tender could not therefore be evaded simply by taking a 100 % holding in a company (‘Teckal’ judgment of 18 November 1999 in Case C-107/98).

---

(1)  See page 471.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/473 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/473

---

(2004/C 84 E/0547)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1671/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up question to question E-3529/02 on statutory regulation of holiday pay

In its answer to Written Question E-3529/02 (1), the Commission states that Belgian legislation defers the actual exercise of entitlement to annual leave to the following calendar year. The Commission considers that this is in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC (2). However, the Article in question expressly states that every (!) worker is entitled to paid annual (!) leave of at least four weeks. In COM(2000) 787 the Commission itself notes that workers cannot take any paid leave during the first year of their employment. The only conclusion that may be drawn from this is that not all workers are entitled to paid annual leave in Belgium, as is explicitly required under Directive 93/104/EC. Article 7(2) of the Directive expressly states that the minimum period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by an allowance in lieu. That means that it is not possible to derogate from paragraph 1.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that not all workers are entitled to paid annual leave in Belgium, as is noted in COM(2000) 787, and that this is the case in particular for those who are in their first year in employment? How does this accord with the provision in the Directive stating that all workers have this right? The Commission is expressly requested to take account of its communication COM(2000) 787 in its answer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that not all workers are entitled to paid annual leave in Belgium, as is noted in COM(2000) 787, and that this is the case in particular for those who are in their first year in employment? How does this accord with the provision in the Directive stating that all workers have this right? The Commission is expressly requested to take account of its communication COM(2000) 787 in its answer.

| 2. | The Commission also did not address, in its earlier answer, the question concerning to what extent the Belgian regulation constitutes an obstacle to free movement of workers and, accordingly, may be in contravention of Article 39 of the Treaty. The Commission is expressly requested to comment on this question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission also did not address, in its earlier answer, the question concerning to what extent the Belgian regulation constitutes an obstacle to free movement of workers and, accordingly, may be in contravention of Article 39 of the Treaty. The Commission is expressly requested to comment on this question.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

| 1. | The Commission refers to its answer to Written Question E-3529/02 by Mr Pronk (3). In addition, the Commission would like to stress that, under Belgian law, every worker has a right to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. Article 2 of the Consolidation Law on annual leave of 27 June 1971 provides that workers (...) are entitled to annual leave in proportion to the work performed (...). Workers' right to leave is an acquired right, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Workers may not waive their entitlement to annual leave. Article 3 of the aforementioned law provides that the amount of leave is defined by leave cycle, on the basis of the amount of services performed during the cycle. (...). Leave must total at least twenty-four days per twelve months of work (...). For the purposes of calculating this amount, the cycle is defined as the calendar year preceding the year in which the leave is to be granted (...).
  Belgian legislation should thus not be confused with legislation such as that in question in the Bectu case (4), since it does not make the entitlement to paid annual leave subject to a minimum period of work but merely defers the practical exercise of this right to the following calendar year. In the view of the Commission, this complies with Article 7(1) (see the argument put forward in the answer to question E-3529/02). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission refers to its answer to Written Question E-3529/02 by Mr Pronk (3). In addition, the Commission would like to stress that, under Belgian law, every worker has a right to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. Article 2 of the Consolidation Law on annual leave of 27 June 1971 provides that workers (...) are entitled to annual leave in proportion to the work performed (...). Workers' right to leave is an acquired right, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Workers may not waive their entitlement to annual leave. Article 3 of the aforementioned law provides that the amount of leave is defined by leave cycle, on the basis of the amount of services performed during the cycle. (...). Leave must total at least twenty-four days per twelve months of work (...). For the purposes of calculating this amount, the cycle is defined as the calendar year preceding the year in which the leave is to be granted (...).

Belgian legislation should thus not be confused with legislation such as that in question in the Bectu case (4), since it does not make the entitlement to paid annual leave subject to a minimum period of work but merely defers the practical exercise of this right to the following calendar year. In the view of the Commission, this complies with Article 7(1) (see the argument put forward in the answer to question E-3529/02).

| 2. | The Commission considers that Belgian legislation does not give rise to discrimination against migrant workers and that, as a result, it does not represent an infringement of the right to free movement of workers (Article 39 of the EC Treaty). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission considers that Belgian legislation does not give rise to discrimination against migrant workers and that, as a result, it does not represent an infringement of the right to free movement of workers (Article 39 of the EC Treaty).

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 222.

(2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

(3)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 222.

(4)  See the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 26 June 2001 in case C-l73/99.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/474 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/474

---

(2004/C 84 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1696/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject:   European funds and subcontracting

Numerous correspondents have drawn my attention to the planned restructuring within the Arcelor group.

Under this restructuring, two factories in France (Isbergues and Ardoise) are to close, and one new factory at Cariam, Belgium, is to open, thus reducing the total number of jobs in Arcelor. If the Commission is not able to take account of the social consequences of this restructuring as grounds for opposing it, I should like to know whether the Commission can oppose this kind of operation if Arcelor, or the enterprises with which it subcontracts, receive European funding.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

According to the records, the Sollac Florange site (which is under threat as a result of the possible termination of Arcelor investment) has not received a contribution from the Community's Structural Funds for the periods 1994-1999 or 2000-2006.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, both project selection and the implementation and management of programmes cofinanced by the Structural Funds are the responsibility of the Member States.

The Structural Funds contribute to the funding of operations which fall within the scope and eligible activities defined in the regulations relating to the various Funds. These operations must come under the priority areas and measures selected for assistance from the Funds covering the region concerned. In order to receive assistance from one of the Funds, the operation must also fulfil the selection criteria approved by a monitoring committee which ensures that the assistance is implemented properly and efficiently.

For the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation on the Structural Funds (1) provides that an operation retains the contribution from the Funds if that operation does not, within five years of the date of the decision awarding it, undergo a substantial modification affecting its nature or its implementation conditions and resulting either from a cessation or change of location in a productive activity. If this is the case, the Member State must inform the Commission and undertake the financial corrections required, by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations are carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/475 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/475

---

(2004/C 84 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1697/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject:   Consumer fraud involving cat and dog skins

A BBC programme claims that hundreds of consumers in Europe are victims of fraud because they are unwittingly buying furs manufactured in Europe from cat and dog skins.

The same programme reports that hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs worldwide are killed each year by shady operators seeking to make a profit by selling their skins in Europe, without any clear indication of the origin of their ‘products’.

In view of the fact that consumer protection is one of the fundamental policies of the EU, will the Commission say what practical measures it will take to put an end to this travesty of a trade which is not only an abhorrent practice but also constitutes consumer fraud?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

At present, the Commission has no information that confirms that cats and dogs are farmed for their fur in the Union or in the ten Acceding Countries.

The Commission does not ignore the issue of imports of cat and dog furs. The Commission is currently examining the questions raised taking into consideration the respective requirements of World Trade Organisation (WTO) law, legal bases under Community law and the interplay with existing legislation to prevent consumer deception.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/475 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/475

---

(2004/C 84 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject:   Financial corrections

In its reply concerning paragraph 2.57 of the 2001 Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (1) the Commission states ‘as part of the follow-up to the 2001 clearance process the Commission services have informed the Portuguese authorities that a financial correction of 2 % of Ifadap expenditure is proposed (EUR 2,8 million)’.

Can the Commission explain exactly what prompted it to impose the financial correction of EUR 2,8 million on Ifadap?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The financial correction in question has not yet reached the final accounts clearance procedure, which includes a hearing stage at which the Member State can put forward its arguments.

If a financial correction decision is adopted we shall inform the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 58.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/476 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/476

---

(2004/C 84 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty

With the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS), Denmark is in breach of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty as a result of Carlsberg's dominant position on the Danish market combined with Carlsberg's dominant influence over DRS A/S. DRS A/S is a private company which has obtained sole and exclusive right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark. Carlsberg, however, controls DRS completely as it has the majority shareholding in DRS Holding and the holding company owns 85 % of the shares in DRS A/S. Furthermore, Carlsberg holds most of the seats on the boards of both DRS Holding and DRS A/S (see previous question E-3828/02 (1)). DRS A/S has sole and exclusive right to operate the deposit and return system with which all companies marketing beer and soft drinks must be registered. The exclusive right comprises the collection of disposable packaging but not collection of reusable packaging which can be organised by the bottling plants themselves. This means that there is no competition on the Danish market for the collection of disposable packaging, which is a breach of Article 82 in that the company concerned, simply by exercising its exclusive right, cannot avoid abusing its dominant position or the exclusive right is likely to create a situation in which the company is induced to commit abuse. By giving sole and exclusive right to DRS A/S, which is effectively controlled by Carlsberg, DRS A/S is placed in a conflict of interests, ‘inter alia’ by giving board members access to sensitive business information about their competitors on the Danish beer and soft drinks market.

Will the Commission intervene in response to this breach of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS) which has obtained the exclusive right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark.

According to the case law of the European Court of Justice merely creating a dominant position is not, in itself, incompatible with Article 82 of the EC Treaty. There can be a breach of the prohibitions contained in Articles 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty if the undertaking in question, by exercising the exclusive rights granted to it, is led to abuse its dominant position or when such rights are liable to create a situation in which that undertaking is led to commit such abuses (cases C-l63/96, Raso; C-209/98, FFAD).

When the Danish legislation on the deposit and return system was drafted, the Commission was in contact with the Danish competition authority. Due to its intervention, modifications of the draft legislation were made. It is not envisaged to start an infringement procedure against Denmark based on the violation of Community competition rules by granting an exclusive right to DRS. The fact that Carlsberg controls DRS is as such not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of DRS. Possible conflicts of interest raised by the Honourable Member can be avoided if there are sufficient firewalls to make sure that Carlsberg does not get access to sensitive business information held by the auditing company or DRS.

As already mentioned in the reply to the Written Question E-3828/02 of the Honourable Member, the Commission is monitoring the practical operation of the system. As far as the practical operation or the scope of the system raise competition issues, the Commission continues to co-operate with the Danish competition authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 52.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/477 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/477

---

(2004/C 84 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   Commission presence at the Fifth World Avocado Congress

Further to my Written Question No Ε-l154/02 (1) of 22 April 2002, and the answer received from the Commission, the organising committee of the Fifth World Avocado Congress is aware of the possibility that a Commission representative might attend the event.

Following the previous four congresses held in the United States, Mexico, South Africa and Israel, the holding of the forthcoming congress in Europe is particularly important for the sector and offers an excellent opportunity for the Commission, in its capacity as manager of the CAP, to gain first-hand knowledge of the findings of papers presented at the congress and consider how they might be applied to assist Community avocado producers.

Will the Commission therefore say whether it is able to accept the invitation from the organising committee of the conference concerned and play an active part in it, examining how the congress' findings can be put into practice and reviewing the position of avocado production within and outside the Community?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2003)

The organisers of the Fifth World Avocado Congress have sent us an invitation to the event without stating any specific wish for active participation. We are looking at the possibility of non-active participation given our work priorities and human and financial resources.

If the organisers wish active participation on our part in the event and in putting its findings into practice, they should make direct contact with the appropriate department within our organisation (Agriculture Directorate-General, Directorate for Markets in Crop Products, Unit for Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetables) so that their wishes can be ascertained and action agreed on.

---

(1)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 154.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/478

---

(2004/C 84 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Letters to the Greek authorities regarding the proper use of Community funds and compliance with Community (regional policy) legislation

Can the Commission say how many letters it has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994 and from whom (Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds and the transposition and proper implementation of Community regional policy legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Under the partnership principle a flow of inquiries and information between the Commission and national authorities in connection with implementation of Community programmes is standard management practice.

For both Greece and the other Member States the exchanges, which occur on an almost daily basis, can be made by various means, including letters signed by a Commissioner or Director-General.

Dispatch of such letters is a routine matter given the Member States' accountability for utilisation of Community funds in line with the rules drawn up at Community level.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/478

---

(2004/C 84 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Protecting slots for regional air routes

Could the Commission clarify the position in regard to how regional air routes can have their slots protected under the current air slot regulations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Community law provides for the protection of regional services in two ways. Firstly, the Community rules on market access (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), Article 4) provide for governments to be able to impose the so-called public service obligations on routes within the Community in the periphery and the regions, for which air transport is vital for their development. For routes where a public obligation has been imposed and which are domestic, the Community rules on slot allocation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (2)) provide that Member States may reserve slots at fully coordinated airports (Article 9 § 1 (b) of the Regulation). For non-domestic routes, where a public service obligation has been imposed, there is no possibility to reserve slots. Secondly, for routes, which do not benefit from a public service obligation but connect regional airports on the territory of a Member State with a fully coordinated airport, the rules on slot allocation (Article 9 § 1 (a) and § 3 of the Regulation) give Member States the right to reserve slots only under certain conditions. Accordingly, slots for such routes could be reserved, only if the routes in question were operated in 1993, when the slot Regulation entered into force, and if the Member State concerned had communicated the list of the routes benefiting from this regime.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2)  OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/479 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/479

---

(2004/C 84 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1886/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Iraqi cultural heritage

According to press reports, the Baghdad National Museum and the Mosul Museum have been primary targets for looting. To date, over 170 000 ancient exhibits have been stolen.

What steps will the Commission take to safeguard Iraq's cultural heritage and to locate the stolen exhibits?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned by the looting and the destruction of a large number of archaeological treasures in the National Archaeological Museum of Baghdad. The Commission supports the views expressed by Unesco in the call issued on 17 April 2003, which deplored the extensive damages to the cultural heritage of Iraq, and recommended measures to stop the traffic of cultural objects exported illicitly.

The Commission is confident that all measures will be taken by the coalition forces, as present the responsible authority in Iraq, so that further destruction is avoided. In this respect, the Commission is preparing a draft regulation to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which repeals the sanctions imposed on Iraq trade. The Commission is considering the possibility of introducing a ban on the import of cultural objects from Iraq, according to the relevant article of Resolution 1483.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/479 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/479

---

(2004/C 84 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1936/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Port safety

The USA lays down requirements concerning the level of safety in European ports from which ships depart for American ports. This seems in actual fact to have meant the USA concluding agreements with, and giving priority to, selected European ports which it considers ‘safe’. At the same time, the USA refuses to have anything to do with other ports which are considered ‘unsafe’. This gives some European ports an unfair competitive advantage over others.

What action does the Commission intend to take to remedy this problem? For example, will it propose legislation making European ports acceptable to the USA? What would be the main features of such legislation? When does it expect to take an initiative in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The European Union has been fully informed about the US authorities' initiatives to require a strengthening of controls and anti-terrorist measures in ports exporting to the United States, and the distortions of competition between ports to which these measures could give rise.

The USA has selected 20 ‘mega ports’, mainly in Europe, not on the basis of the port security measures in place, but to cover as much container traffic as possible, in particular 98 % of containers shipped between the EU and the USA.

The second stage of the introduction of the US Container Security Initiative (CSI) is intended to cover other ports. The choice of these ports may be guided by considerations relating to port security, but the US Customs Service has also indicated that, in this second stage, ports would be chosen on the basis of strategic criteria such as the main shipping routes to the Middle East and/or Africa.

The Community's reply must therefore meet two requirements: it must be global so that it can be part of a world-wide approach, and it must meet EU internal market requirements, in particular by guaranteeing equality of treatment of all EU exporters.

In order to preserve equality of treatment throughout the customs union, the Commission at the beginning of the year sent letters of formal notice to the Member States which signed ‘declarations of intent’ relating to the introduction of the Container Security Initiative.

At the same time, it proposed to the Member States a cooperation plan with the US authorities to establish an agreement to replace the provisions of the declarations of intent which are incompatible with the customs union and the internal market.

On 18 March 2003, the Council approved negotiating directives for the Commission to negotiate, in areas covered by Community competence, a widening of the scope of the customs cooperation agreement concluded between the Community and the USA in 1997 in order to guarantee better coordination of security checks on moving goods.

Furthermore, on 2 May 2003 the Commission adopted a Communication on improving the security of shipping, and a proposal for a Regulation on enhancing ship and port facility security (1).

The Commission plans to adopt other legislative initiatives on port security, the security of the intermodal transport chain and a revision of the Community Customs Code.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 229 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/480 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/480

---

(2004/C 84 E/0557)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2007/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   Vietnam: continuing imprisonment of the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do

The 75-year-old Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the second-highest authority in the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, is still being held in prison, although he should have been released on Sunday, 1 June 2003 after serving the full two-year ‘administrative detention’ sentence (Ref.: 3208/QD-UB) which was handed down on him on 31 May on the basis of a ‘Decision’ by the Ho Chi Minh City's People's Court. According to the local court, this new sentence constituted a reactivation of the five-year sentence of ‘preliminary imprisonment’ to which the religious leader had been sentenced in August 1995, although he had been released under a general amnesty in September 1998. As justification for its ‘Decision’, the Ho Chi Minh City's People's Court claimed that it was acting in order to prevent Thich Quang Do from pursuing activities exerting a malign influence on politics and public order. Such ‘reactivation’ of a sentence is not only arbitrary and against the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Vietnam, it also constitutes a manifest breach of Vietnamese law in that the amnesty from which Ven. Thich Quang Do benefited was determined by the President of the Republic, while the ‘reactivation’ of the sentence was the outcome of a simple decision taken by the Ho Chi Minh City authorities and against which Ven. Thich Quang Do was unable to defend himself before any court whatsoever. Furthermore, according to AFP, quoting sources inside the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, the Vietnamese authorities were thinking about possibly releasing him on 2 September 2003.

Is the Commission aware of these sad developments in what may henceforth be referred to as the ‘Thich Quang Do Case’? What new measures does the Commission intend to take with a view to informing the Vietnamese authorities that the continuing imprisonment of Ven. Thich Quang Do constitutes a serious breach of Vietnamese law, international Conventions to which Vietnam is signatory and the letter and the spirit of the Cooperation Agreement which links Vietnam to the EU? More generally, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that the Vietnamese authorities radically change their attitude and revive the spirit of dialogue which they demonstrated during the recent meeting between the Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr Phan Van Khai?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the continued housearrest for the most Venerable Thich Quan Do.

The Commission's policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or where a deterioration in the situation becomes evident. The Commission works closely with the Member States in monitoring human rights developments in the country and participates in all Union démarches to the Government of Vietnam on human rights issues, including those pertaining to the situation of Persons of Concern.

The Commission and the Member States have repeatedly urged the Government of Vietnam to strengthen its respect for political and religious freedoms, to further strengthen economic and social freedoms and to create a legal framework for a supportive environment to allow the development of a strengthened civil society.

The Commission will continue to follow closely the human rights situation in Vietnam, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States in Vietnam, and take appropriate action.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/481 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/481

---

(2004/C 84 E/0558)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2154/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects

One of the aims of the 5th and 6th Framework Programmes for Research is to encourage innovation. Against this background, the Commission asked interested parties to submit by 15 March 2002 proposals for innovative projects under the reference number INN/01/02. Following the assessment process, in June 2002 31 projects were approved. However, by late December 2002 only four contracts had been concluded.

Can the Commission state why, more than one year following the award of funding, contracts have not been drawn up for 27 of the 31 projects and when it intends to conclude those contracts?

Does the Commission share my view that delays of this kind pose a serious threat to individual projects? If so, what measures is the Commission taking in order to minimise the problems which these delays may cause?

In respect of how many projects under the 5th and 6th Framework Programmes for Research have contracts not yet been signed, even though the assessment of those projects was completed one year, or even longer, ago?

As of late May 2003 the backlog of payments under the budget title covering research and technological development totals some EUR 7 billion. Can the Commission state how quickly it intends to reduce that backlog, what measures it is taking in order to achieve that aim and whether there is a danger that some of the appropriations will be cancelled? In that connection, are delays also occurring in the disbursement of funding for projects already under way and in respect of which invoices are regularly submitted? If so, in how many cases (absolute and relative proportion of all current projects) and for what reasons?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

In answer to the third part of his question, the Honourable Member will find below a list of unsigned research contracts the assessment of which was completed over a year ago

This list only relates to the 5th framework programme (RTD). The question cannot apply to the 6th framework programme, for which implementation did not begin until the end of 2002.

| — | ten individual grants in the ‘Human factor and mobility’ field; |
| --- | --- |

—

ten individual grants in the ‘Human factor and mobility’ field;

| — | twenty CRAFT projects in the Industrial Technologies field; |
| --- | --- |

—

twenty CRAFT projects in the Industrial Technologies field;

| — | two projects in the Environment field; |
| --- | --- |

—

two projects in the Environment field;

| — | four projects in the ‘Knowledge-based society and economy’ field. |
| --- | --- |

—

four projects in the ‘Knowledge-based society and economy’ field.

In most cases, the delays are attributable to the contractors (contractor in liquidation, withdrawal, change of details requiring a new entry in the third party ledger, etc.) or to the instability of partners within the consortia (bankruptcy, change of priorities, change of partners or coordinator, etc.).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/482 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/482

---

(2004/C 84 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2158/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue

The author of this question has duly noted the reply of 6 June 2003 which she has received from Mrs Diamantopoulou (on behalf of the Commission) in respect of her question P-l696/03 (1), but she would like to request further information: namely, can the Commission object to the restructuring envisaged on the Isbergue site if EU funding is received either by Arcelor or by the companies with which Arcelor has sub-contracting arrangements?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The answer to this question must set out the same principles already explained in the answer given on 6 June 2003 to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-1696/03.

The Commission cannot object to the restructuring of an industrial grouping based solely on whether this group has or has not received assistance from the Structural Funds.

However, for the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation (2) on the Structural Funds provides that if, within five years of the decision awarding assistance, an operation which has received assistance from the Structural Funds undergoes a substantial modification affecting the nature of the operation or its conditions of implementation, as a result of a cessation or change of location of an activity, the provisions on financial corrections set out in Article 39 of the Regulation apply. In this case, the Member State must inform the Commission and make the required financial corrections by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations were carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

---

(1)  See page 474.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/483 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/483

---

(2004/C 84 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Georgia

Knowing that:

| — | On 15 June a demonstration organised by the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze blockaded a Pentecostal church in Tbilisi for seven hours, preventing worshippers from attending a special Whitsun service. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 15 June a demonstration organised by the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze blockaded a Pentecostal church in Tbilisi for seven hours, preventing worshippers from attending a special Whitsun service.

| — | The pastor Nicolai Kalatsky received death threats. The demonstrators were brought in by ten or more vehicles between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and one of them admitted that the protest had been organised by the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze. |
| --- | --- |

—

The pastor Nicolai Kalatsky received death threats. The demonstrators were brought in by ten or more vehicles between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and one of them admitted that the protest had been organised by the Orthodox priest Father David Isakadze.

| — | The blockade by sixteen Orthodox vigilantes took place on the same day that a Baptist church was set on fire in the village of Akhalsopeli in eastern Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

—

The blockade by sixteen Orthodox vigilantes took place on the same day that a Baptist church was set on fire in the village of Akhalsopeli in eastern Georgia.

| — | In recent years Georgia has been the scene of violence against religious minorities perpetrated by ‘Orthodox vigilantes’, who seem to receive the full support of the authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

In recent years Georgia has been the scene of violence against religious minorities perpetrated by ‘Orthodox vigilantes’, who seem to receive the full support of the authorities.

| — | Although there have been hundreds of acts of violence nobody has been tried or convicted. |
| --- | --- |

—

Although there have been hundreds of acts of violence nobody has been tried or convicted.

| — | All over Georgia the authorities continue to attack religious minorities. On 1 June the police chief Levan Chokheli raided a private home in the city of Gori and ordered a meeting of around 600 Jehovah's Witnesses to be suspended. |
| --- | --- |

—

All over Georgia the authorities continue to attack religious minorities. On 1 June the police chief Levan Chokheli raided a private home in the city of Gori and ordered a meeting of around 600 Jehovah's Witnesses to be suspended.

In view of the excellent economic and commercial cooperation relations between the European Union and Georgia, can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | what measures, in the context of cooperation, might constitute a serious and effective way of persuading Georgia to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures, in the context of cooperation, might constitute a serious and effective way of persuading Georgia to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is concerned by the problem of increased violations of religious freedom in Georgia. The Commission welcomes the participation on 14 March 2003 of President Eduard Shevardnadze in an Ecumenical service in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. At this service, which was also attended by representatives of the Commission's Delegation and Member States, President Shevardnadze said for the first time that violence against religious minorities must be prosecuted. Nevertheless, the Commission regrets that violent incidents continue, including the burning down of the Baptist church in Akhalsopeli, eastern Georgia. On 8 May 2003 the Greek Presidency on behalf of the EU made an official statement to the OSCE deploring the assault on an Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) observer at the trial of Mkalavishvili on 29 April 2003. The Commission will continue to follow this issue closely.

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of all political dialogues with third countries. In its regular political dialogue with Georgia, under the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, the Union ‘inter alia’ systematically raises human rights issues, including the question of how to protect religious minorities. The Commission for its part will aim to increase the effectiveness of the dialogue on these issues.

As regards the provision of assistance and as outlined in its May 2001 Communication on the Union's role in the promotion of Democracy and Human Rights in third countries (1), the Commission is committed to mainstreaming Human Rights and democratisation issues in all Community assistance programmes. Country Strategy Papers are used as a tool to take a more coherent and consistent approach to the promotion of human rights and democratisation, using the various financial instruments available to third countries, in addition to the assistance that is being provided through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

Moreover, the Commission has prepared a new Country Strategy for the Union's relations with Georgia and, in this context, is currently redirecting its technical assistance towards the strengthening of governance and the promotion of human rights and civil society there. This should help to create better conditions for the respect of religious freedom. The new Tacis Indicative Programme 2004-2006 for Georgia in particular proposes co-operation to support institutional, legal and administrative reform and addresses the social consequences of transition and assistance to social reconstruction.

Georgia is also one of 31 ‘focus countries’ of the ‘European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights’ (EIDHR) for the period 2002-2004. One of the four thematic priorities of the EIDHR is the combating of racism and xenophobia and discrimination against minorities and indigenous peoples. On 11 July 2003 the Commission launched a new Call for Proposals for microprojects under EIDHR for projects to be implemented by Georgian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a budget of between EUR 3 000 and EUR 50 000. One of the priority themes of this call will be ‘Support for measures to combat racism and xenophobia and to protect religious and ethnic minorities’. The deadline for applications is 15 September 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/484 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/484

---

(2004/C 84 E/0561)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Train warning signals

| 1. | Will the Commission state if any European legislation requires Member State rail authorities to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission state if any European legislation requires Member State rail authorities to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume?

| 2. | If not will the Commission state if it has any intention to introduce such a proposal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not will the Commission state if it has any intention to introduce such a proposal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

There is no European legislation which requires railway undertakings in a Member State to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume.

The Commission does not have any plans to put forward such a proposal.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/485 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/485

---

(2004/C 84 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive

The Commission's proposal (1) for a Council (Euratom) directive on nuclear safety proposes harmonising the administration of funds for decommissioning nuclear power stations. Is the Commission sure that there is an adequate legal basis for such a directive? Is it possible that this part of the directive could be transformed into a separate proposal for a directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Honourable Member's question focuses on the legal basis of the provisions on decommissioning funds included in the proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations.

Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty states that the Community must ‘establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and ensure that they are applied.’ Title II Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty requires basic standards to be laid down to protect the health of workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation. On this basis, a considerable body of radiation protection legislation has been produced which, while designed to protect health, has a far wider scope than health protection in the strict sense. Radiation protection and nuclear safety have the common objective of protecting workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation, and both form part of the EU's health protection policy. Indeed, in its judgment of 10 December 2002 (Case C-29/99), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Euratom Treaty also covered aspects relating to nuclear safety.

The health of workers and the general public can be protected fully only by removing any potential risk, and this also entails measures to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety. Decommissioning funds should therefore be regarded not as an end in themselves but as a means of ensuring a high level of nuclear safety when decommissioning operations are being carried out. Basically, the funds are comparable to any other measures to achieve this objective, including technical ones. The fact is that financial resources are a key component of a credible nuclear facility safety policy, which has to guarantee a high level of safety not only during a facility's operating lifetime but also afterwards for as long as the facility needs to be monitored for ionising radiation protection purposes. That is why the proposal for a Directive on the safety of nuclear installations, on the legal basis of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, also contains provisions on decommissioning funds.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 32 - C5-0228/2003 - 2003/0021(CNS).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/486 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/486

---

(2004/C 84 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/03

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Non-compliance by Italy with Article 43 TEC

Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the Treaty establishing the European Community prohibits any restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. The European Court of Justice ruling in the Kraus case of 31 March 1993 specified that these freedoms are also enjoyed by citizens of a Member State who, after obtaining a professional qualification recognised by Community law, are in an analogous situation vis-à-vis their Member State of origin to all other persons who enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.

As regards the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the abolition of restrictions is facilitated, pursuant to Article 47 TEC, by coordination of the conditions for the exercise of these professions in the various Member States and through directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications and the harmonisation of national requirements for the taking-up and pursuit of employment.

In its ruling on the Hocsman case, the Court of Justice specified that Article 43 TEC requires the national authorities to carry out a comparison, on a case-by-case basis, of the diplomas obtained by the persons concerned, including diplomas awarded by third countries. Under Directive 78/686/EEC (1), each Member State must recognise the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in dentistry awarded to nationals of Member States by the other Member States in accordance with Directive 78/687/EEC (2), by giving such qualifications, as far as the right to take up and pursue the activities of a dental practitioner is concerned, the same effect in its territory as those which that Member State itself awards. On 11 and 13 March 2003, three complaints against Italy for violation of Article 43 TEC were submitted to the European Commission by Italian nationals with diplomas in dentistry issued either by a Member State or by a third country, Croatia, which had already been recognised in another Member State but which Italy did not recognise.

In a letter of 21 November 2001, the European Commission drew the Italian authorities' attention to the need to respect the principles and obligations enshrined in European case law. In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it opportune to take action, if necessary in the form of a letter of formal notice, to ensure that the Italian authorities put a stop to these reported violations of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The question of Italy's recognition of qualifications in dentistry obtained in third countries by Community nationals which have already been recognised in another Member State of the European Union, is one with which the Commission is well acquainted, mainly on account of petitions 34, 105 and 303/2000 (3).

The Commission would like to make it clear that, in accordance with the ECJ case-law in Case C-238/98 Hocsman (4), the Italian authorities took a decision in March 2002 on the application for professional recognition by the parties concerned, after having taken their training and professional experience into account. The fact that the Italian authorities made this recognition conditional upon an aptitude test in a certain number of subjects is not in itself contrary to Community law, as this possibility follows from the aforementioned case-law.

The complaints received by the Commission in March 2003 specifically contest the decisions taken. These complaints are currently being examined by the Commission, which will pay particular attention to the Court's latest ruling on the recognition of third-country diplomas, delivered on 19 June 2003 in Case C-110/01 Malika Tennah-Durez (5).

The Commission is well aware that it is a matter of urgency for the complainants that the problems encountered be solved. They will be informed of the outcome of this investigation as soon as it is available.

---

(1)  OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.

(3)  These petitions were closed on 21 March 2003.

(4)  ECR p. I-6623.

(5)  Not yet published in the ECR.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/487

---

(2004/C 84 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2341/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Letters to the Greek authorities on the proper use of Community Regional Policy funds

In his answer to my Written Question E-1830/03 (1), Commissioner Barnier made general remarks about the procedure for sending letters, but avoided answering my question. I shall therefore repeat the question: Can the Commission say how many letters it has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994 and from whom (Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds and the transposition and proper implementation of Community regional policy legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The Commission would impress on the Honourable Member the very great difficulty of determining the exact number of letters sent to the Greek authorities over the last ten years on the topic of proper use of Community funds and correct application of Structural Fund rules. One reason is the multiplicity of Commission departments involved.

The volume of these letters is certainly very large since they concern more than 100 programmes and have been sent from different levels of the Community administration to the national authorities at central, regional and local level. Dispatch of such letters is a routine matter given the Member States' accountability for utilisation of Community funds in line with the rules drawn up at Community level. By way of example, in May this year the Regional Policy Directorate-General's unit for Greece sent the Greek authorities a total of eighteen letters.

---

(1)  See page 478.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/487

---

(2004/C 84 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2350/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the Darwin Mounds

Further to its reply to Written Question P-0213/03 (1) concerning the protection of the Darwin Mounds, will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government with a request or with justification for the use of emergency powers by the Commission as provided by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) in respect of this area? If so, will the Commission also confirm the date on which this approach was first made by the UK Government, given the implication that this had not occurred at the time of the Commission's response to Question P-0213/03?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it has been contacted by United Kingdom authorities about the protection of the Darwin Mounds further to its reply to Written Question P-0213/03.

The United Kingdom authorities put the issue to Directorate General Fisheries in March 2003 and asked about the possibility of emergency measures. On 24 June 2003, the Commission received a letter from the United Kingdom authorities asking it to take action to close the Darwin Mounds to methods of fishing likely to cause further irreparable damage to them. The Mounds already show signs of damage caused by bottom trawling. As fishing of the kind is still taking place in the area, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asks the Commission to consider its emergency powers under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, to address the problem immediately.

Our services have already started to prepare a proposal for a Council Regulation to prohibit the use of bottom trawls and other towed gear in the Darwin Mounds. This will be done by way of an amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (3) and, therefore, the Parliament will be duly consulted.

As far as the emergency procedure is concerned, we are now considering whether this case meets the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. If there is a case for using such procedure the Commission will swiftly adopt legislation similar to the one mentioned above, which will be valid for six months and which can be extended for another six months.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 195.

(2)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

(3)  OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/488 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/488

---

(2004/C 84 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2413/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding for children's choral exchanges

Can the Commission advise of the possible avenues for securing financial support at European level for travel expenses incurred by a primary school (maximum age 13) participating in a choral exchange between EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

European funding for cooperation in the field of school education is provided by the Comenius actions of the Socrates Programme.

Comenius School Projects offer a framework in which pupils and school education staff from the 30 countries currently participating in Socrates can work together on a theme of common interest, including for example music. Financing may be provided both for local project activities and for the costs of mobility to visit partner schools. Funding for class exchanges (i.e. for the mobility of more than three or four pupils) is however available only in the framework of Comenius Language Projects, in which the current minimum participation age is 14 years.

All of these school partnership projects are managed in a decentralised way by a Socrates National Agency in each participating country, and any school interested in applying for Comenius funding should contact its own Agency for information. Contact details are available on the following Europa website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/nat-est_en.html).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/489 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/489

---

(2004/C 84 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Bullfrogs

According to nature conservation associations, large colonies of bullfrogs are threatening the fauna in Belgium. Given that the import of these animals has been prohibited since 1997, it is highly likely that they are being imported under another name. According to nature conservation organisations, sellers use the term ‘giant frog larvae’ and other names in order to smuggle bullfrogs into Europe and to sell them at garden centres and markets. These frogs are driving out native species.

Is the European Commission aware that, despite the EU ban, bullfrogs are still being imported into Europe?

What measures is the European Commission taking in order to tackle this illegal trade?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware that bullfrogs are being smuggled into Europe under other names where they are sold to garden centres and markets. A recent study carried out for the Commission on the application of Union wildlife trade regulations in relation to species which form an ecological threat to Union fauna and flora concludes that American bullfrogs ‘appear to be no longer sold for garden ponds’. The Commission has not received any information on illegal imports of bullfrogs from other sources either.

Combating the smuggling of animals is mainly the responsibility of Member States. However, if the Commission receives relevant information on illegal trade in a species listed on the annexes of Council Regulation 338/97 (1), it can draw Member States' attention to matters whose investigation it considers necessary.

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for this information and will transmit it to the competent Belgian authorities.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/489 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/489

---

(2004/C 84 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   HIV/AIDS situation in Central Asian countries

According to the United Nations, its specialised agencies and non-governmental organisations active in the field of harm reduction, HIV is spreading rapidly through the Central Asian countries. While the number of HIV cases remains small, it has grown exponentially in the past four to five years primarily through injecting drug use (IDU). In Uzbekistan there were almost as many new HIV cases reported in the first six months of 2002 as in the whole of the previous decade; injecting drug users (IDUs) accounted for 90 % of these cases. Neighbouring Kyrgyzstan reported four HIV cases in 1996; by the end of 2002 there were 825 cases, 82 % among IDUs. In Kazakhstan, IDUs comprise 87 % of the 2 870 reported HIV cases and in Tajikistan they comprised 73 % of the 45 registered cases. These statistics, however, do not indicate true HIV prevalence rates in the region, which are estimated to be up to ten times higher than those officially reported. Underreporting is caused by poor epidemiological surveillance.

Injecting drug use is rampant in the region partially because Central Asia is a crucial drug trafficking route through which drugs produced in Afghanistan and Pakistan filter into other markets. Studies show that, along trafficking routes across the world, when heroin is present a certain percentage of people will try it and become users. This growing HIV epidemic in the Central Asian countries can and must be contained.

Is the Commission involved in trying to reduce drug supply through seizures and the passage of punitive drug laws for possession of small quantities, driving in this way IDUs further underground where they are harder to reach and unable to access services, or is it pondering the possibility of providing access to drug treatment and needle exchange programmes therefore honouring its supposed balanced approach to the drug question?

Does the Commission not believe that the time has come to evaluate the ways in which drugs are currently ‘controlled’ by the prohibitionist arsenal of the three UN Conventions and the various national legislations deriving from them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The European Union's strategy to fight drugs along the heroin routes was drawn up under its Action Plan on Drugs (2002-2004) which clearly sets out the measures to be taken over the five-year period by the EU institutions and the Member States.

These measures cover both demand and supply reduction and focus on the need for international cooperation and effective information, evaluation and coordination at all levels.

Under point 5 of the European Union's Action Plan in respect of external action, the Commission regards international cooperation as a key element in the fight against drugs. The Commission will give particular importance to the main trafficking routes supplying the European Union.

Since Afghanistan continues to be the main heroin producer in the world despite measures taken by the international community to eradicate drug production, the long-term objective is to set up a system of ‘filters’ between the main sources of opiates and heroin, Afghanistan, and Europe.

To attain this objective a number of technical assistance programmes and initiatives have been put in place either directly through specific measures to combat drugs or through complementary measures to strengthen border controls and customs control in the Newly-Independent States, the Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe.

The Commission has launched three coordinated anti-drug programmes in the three regions on the heroin routes: BUMAD (Belarus, Ukraine and Moldavia), SCAD (South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) and CADAP (Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan).

The overall objective of these three programmes is to reduce and prevent drug trafficking in the regions supplying the European Union.

The strategy adopted under these programmes is threefold:

| — | provide greater assistance to ensure balanced and comprehensive monitoring of drugs in the region: each programme will mount specific projects in four sectors which are the prerequisites for effective and modern methods to combat drugs: (a) an appropriate legal and institutional framework, (b) effective border control, (c) reliable information on drug use and effective information on drug trafficking, (d) modern measures to combat drug use and reduce demand and its effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide greater assistance to ensure balanced and comprehensive monitoring of drugs in the region: each programme will mount specific projects in four sectors which are the prerequisites for effective and modern methods to combat drugs: (a) an appropriate legal and institutional framework, (b) effective border control, (c) reliable information on drug use and effective information on drug trafficking, (d) modern measures to combat drug use and reduce demand and its effects;

| — | encourage compatibility between measures taken to combat drugs by the European Union and the beneficiary region by promoting European Union methodologies and standards to control and combat drugs. This objective will be attained through the use of European Union experts in the four sectors and through training, study trips and exchange programmes for officials in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage compatibility between measures taken to combat drugs by the European Union and the beneficiary region by promoting European Union methodologies and standards to control and combat drugs. This objective will be attained through the use of European Union experts in the four sectors and through training, study trips and exchange programmes for officials in the European Union;

| — | promote cooperation at national and regional level: cooperation between beneficiary countries will be made possible through a coordinated programme of assistance for harmonised control of drugs for the ten beneficiary countries in question. Each programme will also be tailored to national needs. Under each project inter-institutional cooperation will be encouraged at national and regional level through training and joint study trips. |
| --- | --- |

—

promote cooperation at national and regional level: cooperation between beneficiary countries will be made possible through a coordinated programme of assistance for harmonised control of drugs for the ten beneficiary countries in question. Each programme will also be tailored to national needs. Under each project inter-institutional cooperation will be encouraged at national and regional level through training and joint study trips.

To amplify the impact of these measures the Tacis anti-drug programmes will be closely coordinated with parallel customs and border control programmes, i.e. BOMCA (border management programme in Central Asia).

The action programme to combat drugs in Central Asia (CADAP) was launched in January 2001 with the appointment of a coordinator for the programme at the Commission Delegation in Almaty. He will soon be replaced and will join the BOMCA coordinator in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

In the first phase of the CADAP programme (CADAP I) some EUR 3,5 million was provided to fund the following projects:

| — | control of airports: supply of surveillance and control equipment and training in the four principal airports in the region; |
| --- | --- |

—

control of airports: supply of surveillance and control equipment and training in the four principal airports in the region;

| — | system of information on drug use: the current NADIN project is aimed at providing the countries in question with the capacity to carry out epidemiological studies of drugs in order to draw up their own drug prevention and treatment/rehabilitation policies; |
| --- | --- |

—

system of information on drug use: the current NADIN project is aimed at providing the countries in question with the capacity to carry out epidemiological studies of drugs in order to draw up their own drug prevention and treatment/rehabilitation policies;

| — | following the recent events in Afghanistan, CADAP I has provided support to set up a new anti-drug agency in Tajikistan, |
| --- | --- |

—

following the recent events in Afghanistan, CADAP I has provided support to set up a new anti-drug agency in Tajikistan,

| — | a coordination office has been set up in Almaty at the Commission Delegation. This will move to Bishkek to facilitate coordination with the new BOMCA programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

a coordination office has been set up in Almaty at the Commission Delegation. This will move to Bishkek to facilitate coordination with the new BOMCA programme.

The second phase of the CADAP programme (CADAP II) which will receive funding of EUR 4,5 million from Tacis will start in the autumn of this year.

This will be followed one year later by CADAP III with funding of EUR 3 million.

The following projects will be mounted under CAPAP II and CADAP III:

| — | legal assistance: this project will improve anti-drug legislation in the region and strengthen the operational capacity of judges and public prosecutors for judicial cooperation (mutual judicial assistance and monitoring of movements of drugs). The United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will be involved in implementing this project; |
| --- | --- |

—

legal assistance: this project will improve anti-drug legislation in the region and strengthen the operational capacity of judges and public prosecutors for judicial cooperation (mutual judicial assistance and monitoring of movements of drugs). The United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will be involved in implementing this project;

| — | control of airports: this project follows on from CADAP I. Its aim is to set up information units at the principal airports in the region to improve analysis of and sharing of information on drug trafficking (equipment and training will be provided by the project); |
| --- | --- |

—

control of airports: this project follows on from CADAP I. Its aim is to set up information units at the principal airports in the region to improve analysis of and sharing of information on drug trafficking (equipment and training will be provided by the project);

| — | control of ports: this project will strengthen the inspection and information capacities of the port of Aktau (Kazakhstan); |
| --- | --- |

—

control of ports: this project will strengthen the inspection and information capacities of the port of Aktau (Kazakhstan);

| — | land border posts: the project will provide support for border posts along the trafficking routes. In each country key border posts will be selected for training and equipment assistance to strengthen their operational capacity. The project will be implemented in close cooperation with the UNDCP; |
| --- | --- |

—

land border posts: the project will provide support for border posts along the trafficking routes. In each country key border posts will be selected for training and equipment assistance to strengthen their operational capacity. The project will be implemented in close cooperation with the UNDCP;

| — | police intelligence: this project will support the development of an intelligence system within law enforcement services in the region to more effectively combat drug trafficking; |
| --- | --- |

—

police intelligence: this project will support the development of an intelligence system within law enforcement services in the region to more effectively combat drug trafficking;

| — | prevention of drug abuse in prisons: this project will support prevention, treatment and rehabilitation and probation in certain prisons in Central Asia. Assistance for prevention measures by the authorities will be considered. |
| --- | --- |

—

prevention of drug abuse in prisons: this project will support prevention, treatment and rehabilitation and probation in certain prisons in Central Asia. Assistance for prevention measures by the authorities will be considered.

The Commission is also one of the main participants in, and contributors to, the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Funding will be used to support measures taken by the countries concerned including Central Asia.

At a more general level, the Commission has also focused its local development programmes in Central Asia in the southern regions of Tajikistan and in the Kyrgyz and Tajik areas of the Ferghana valley which are the main transit areas and where severe poverty makes the population even more vulnerable to traffickers and drug trafficking.

Finally, the Community is not party to the United Nations drugs conventions (with the exception of Article 12 of the 1988 Convention against the Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in respect of chemical precursors) and it is therefore up to the Member States to propose any amendments to these Conventions.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/492 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/492

---

(2004/C 84 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Illegal importations of bushmeat

Can the Commission report on levels of illegal importation of bushmeat into Member States, indicating recent trends in import volumes; animal meat-source composition; originating source and destination patterns; transportation routes/methods; and detection levels?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission regrets that the information requested by the Honourable Member is not available. Almost by definition, illegal imports rarely appear in the statistics.

The Commission has information on legally imported CITES (1) listed species, as importers are obliged to notify their authorities and to present permits or notifications. However, the import of specimens of CITES-listed species for use as bushmeat is illegal, and importers are not going to reveal that they are breaching the rules.

Nor is it possible to extrapolate from the number of confiscations as there is no reliable way of determining what proportion of the commodity is accounted for by confiscated material — contraband which evades the system is never recorded. In the case of bushmeat, there have only been two confiscations since 1999.

---

(1)  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/493 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/493

---

(2004/C 84 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   World current account discrepancy

Will the Commission estimate for last year, and project for this year, the size of the world current account discrepancy both in euros and as a proportion of GDP? Will it give its explanation of the discrepancy and say whether it believes that unrecorded foreign exchange receipts for some or all Member States are a reason for it? If so, what is the likely scale of the under-recording and is there any reason to believe that it might vary between Member States? What effect would such under-recording have on the observed current account balances for the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission does not produce estimates of the size of the world current account discrepancy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the only international organisation for which enough information is available to produce such estimates.

The latest world current account discrepancy figures, as calculated by the IMF, refer to the year 2001, and they totalled EUR – 131,1 billion. Using the World Bank estimate of gross domestic product (GDP) for the year 2001 (EUR 34 748 billion) the world current account discrepancy corresponds to 0,38 % of world GDP. The average discrepancy for the period 1995-2001 was EUR -49,4 billion, displaying a negative sign during all the period 1995-2001 with the only exception of 1997.

Regarding Member States contribution to the global asymmetry, the only source available to the Commission (Eurostat) is the size of the asymmetries observed in the Balance of Payments of the Union (1). In 2001 intra-Union current account asymmetries reached EUR 34,3 billion (0,39 % of Union GDP). The imbalance is positive, meaning than reported credits exceed reported debits in the case of the Union Balance of Payments. Preliminary results for 2002 point to a discrepancy of EUR 31,4 billion. This positive imbalance represents a structural feature of the intra-Union current account balance over the period 1995-2001. Over this period the intra-Union current account balance showed an average positive discrepancy of EUR 42,5 billion.

For further details, two annexes are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  More detailed information is available in Eurostat, 2002. Asymmetries of Current account in the intra-UE balance of payments, Working Papers ans studies (available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&collection=12-Working%20papers%20and%20studies&product=KS-AO-02-004-_-N-EN).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/493 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/493

---

(2004/C 84 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2503/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Car hire companies

I have received numerous letters from constituents complaining that when they have pre-booked an ‘all inclusive’ hire car, they then find they are liable to extra charges that dramatically increase the overall cost of the car hire.

Has the Commission received any such complaints about hire car pricing, in particular the transparency of pricing and the increasing use of fuel being sold by some hire companies at well above the market rate?

Has the Commission had any contact with car hire companies in the recent past? If so, what matters were discussed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

A business practice that deceives consumers about the real costs of a service is incompatible with the spirit of Article 15 3 of the EC Treaty that stresses, among other things, the right to consumer information which has always been one of the main concerns for Union consumer protection. However, the problem of ‘all-inclusive’ hire cars has not, so far, been specifically brought to the Commission's attention.

At present, Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (1), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (2) on misleading and comparative advertisement, makes it illegal to mislead consumers in relation to the price of a service (Article 3(b)). Moreover, price increases in contract terms can be unfair according to Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (3). The indicative and non-exhaustive list in the Annex to the Directive expressly includes contract clauses providing for price increases without giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed (No 1 (1)).

Car hire companies have inquired whether Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (4) is fully applicable to their business. Article 3(2), 2nd indent of the Directive exempts, among other things, contracts for transport from certain provisions of the Directive. However, no mention is made of car rental contracts. A case has just been filed (30 July 2003) in the European Court of Justice where it is asked whether car rental agreements are covered by the Directive [EasyCar (UK) Ltd, C-336/03]. That case is now pending.

More generally, the Commission has put great efforts into tackling unfair business practices. These efforts have most recently yielded the Proposal for a Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (the unfair commercial practice Directive) (5). This Directive, when adopted, will outlaw unfair commercial practices that are, for instance, misleading. Article 6(1)(c) of the proposed Directive expressly names as a misleading practice consumer deception in relation to price calculation.

---

(1)  OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2)  OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(3)  OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

(4)  OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(5)  COM(2003) 356 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/494 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/494

---

(2004/C 84 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   EU egg producers

Is the Commission aware of the acute concerns amongst egg producers in the European Union over the threat to their livelihoods from a combination of new legislation on the welfare of hens and the potential increase of egg imports under the terms of the ongoing WTO round?

What steps are being taken by the European Commission to ensure a level playing field in the international trade in eggs and in providing adequate compensation to European Union egg producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-l625/03 by Mrs Jackson (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 147.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/495 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/495

---

(2004/C 84 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Attacks on freedom of religion in Georgia affecting members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic and Orthodox confessions and Jehovah's Witnesses

Knowing that:

| — | Over the last four years, religious minorities in Georgia have been subjected to unprecedented levels of violence from ‘vigilantes’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Over the last four years, religious minorities in Georgia have been subjected to unprecedented levels of violence from ‘vigilantes’.

| — | Members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, and Orthodox confessions, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, have been attacked by mobs orchestrated by self-styled Orthodox ‘vigilantes’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, and Orthodox confessions, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, have been attacked by mobs orchestrated by self-styled Orthodox ‘vigilantes’.

| — | Over a hundred attacks on religious minorities have been identified in these four years, and the public and the police are well aware of who their authors are; despite this, no-one has ever been prosecuted. |
| --- | --- |

—

Over a hundred attacks on religious minorities have been identified in these four years, and the public and the police are well aware of who their authors are; despite this, no-one has ever been prosecuted.

| — | The religious violence in Georgia has been condemned by such figures as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and by Pope John Paul II. |
| --- | --- |

—

The religious violence in Georgia has been condemned by such figures as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and by Pope John Paul II.

And considering that:

| — | On 15 June 2003, in the village of Akhalsopeli, a Baptist church burnt down. The members of the Baptist community deny the claim made by the Governor of East Georgia district that they set their own church on fire. The villagers have threatened to deny the Baptists permission to rebuild their church and to destroy it again if it is rebuilt. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 15 June 2003, in the village of Akhalsopeli, a Baptist church burnt down. The members of the Baptist community deny the claim made by the Governor of East Georgia district that they set their own church on fire. The villagers have threatened to deny the Baptists permission to rebuild their church and to destroy it again if it is rebuilt.

| — | On 13 July 2003, in Tbilisi, Orthodox vigilantes prevented a Pentecostal church from holding meetings for the sixth Sunday running, surrounding the house where the meeting was due to take place and chanting ‘Russians, go back to Russia and do whatever you want there’. According to Pastor Kalutsky, the demonstrators identified themselves as Orthodox and said their aim was to stop non-Orthodox religious services from being held. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 13 July 2003, in Tbilisi, Orthodox vigilantes prevented a Pentecostal church from holding meetings for the sixth Sunday running, surrounding the house where the meeting was due to take place and chanting ‘Russians, go back to Russia and do whatever you want there’. According to Pastor Kalutsky, the demonstrators identified themselves as Orthodox and said their aim was to stop non-Orthodox religious services from being held.

In view of the excellent relations of cooperation existing between the EU and Georgia, can the Commission state whether it is aware of the above facts and indicate what initiatives, in the context of the cooperation relationship, could constitute an effective and workable means of inducing Georgia to ensure respect for freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2257/03 (1).

---

(1)  See page 483.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/496 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/496

---

(2004/C 84 E/0574)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/03

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Approval of Luxembourg secondary school leaving certificates in Belgium

The Luxembourg Government's website states that, following an intervention by the Commission, the French Community of Belgium is reintroducing, as of 2003-2004, the obligation for holders of a Luxembourg secondary or technical secondary school leaving certificate or a Luxembourg technical diploma to have them approved by the Belgian authorities before being allowed to enrol at universities and other higher education institutions in Belgium.

In spite of the fact that Luxembourg students have never previously been confronted with this administrative burden, it turns out that those wishing to enrol for the first time at a Belgian university for the academic year 2003-2004, who have already sent off their documents, have not yet received an approval of their secondary school leaving certificate from the French Community. This means there is a chance that they may not be able to enrol in Belgium for the coming academic year, even though some of the students have already paid out money in anticipation of beginning their studies (accommodation, deposits, etc.).

Can the Commission provide information as to the exact situation?

Does it intend to contact the Belgian authorities so that the Luxembourg students concerned may register at the right time?

Why are Luxembourg students now required to have their certificates approved when in the past they were treated in the same way as Belgian students?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

In 1999, in response to complaints from nationals of other Member States, and from Belgian nationals holding a French Baccalaureate, the Commission drew the Belgian government's attention to the compatibility with the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 12, 149 and 150, of the French Community's legislation and administrative practice in respect of access to higher education for holders of secondary school leaving qualifications acquired in other Member States.

Infringement proceedings were brought on the grounds that admission of nationals of other Member States to certain areas of higher education (medicine, pharmacy, etc.) in Belgium was subject to an aptitude examination referred to as ‘examen de maturité’, which was not required of students who obtained their secondary school leaving certificate in Belgium.

The Commission considered this condition to be in breach of Article 12, in conjunction with Articles 149 and 150, of the EC Treaty. The right to equal treatment for nationals of other Member States in respect of access to education and vocational training was established by the Court judgment of 13 February 1985 (Gravier 293/83). In its judgment the Court confirmed that, in order to have any meaningful effect, this right necessarily implies that, once a diploma has been judged equivalent in that it certifies a level of educational attainment at least equal to that of equivalent studies in Belgium, the student concerned should not be subject, for the purposes of access to higher education, to conditions which are not imposed on students who obtained their diploma in Belgium, such as passing a supplementary aptitude examination.

Since the Belgian authorities took no appropriate action to put an end to this situation, the Commission brought proceedings against Belgium under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In its defence, Belgium indicated that two changes had been made to the French Community's legislation in order to end the infringement: an amendment to Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971, and repeal of the automatic equivalence system which had applied to Luxembourg diplomas since 1999.

The Commission considers that the amendment to the Royal Decree of 1971 was sufficient to put and end to the infringement.

Nonetheless, the Commission considers that it would have been more logical for Belgium to look into whether it might be possible to introduce an automatic equivalence system for the secondary school diplomas of other Member States similar to that applied to Luxembourg. Abolishing the automatic equivalence so far granted to Luxembourg nationals would appear to amount in practice to reintroducing an administrative condition which had not in the past been considered necessary.

The Commission has not received any complaints from students from other Member States concerning recognition of their secondary education certificates by the French Community for the purposes of enrolling at a Belgian university for the 2003/2004 academic year. The Commission would be grateful for any information the Honourable Member can provide in this respect.

If, on the basis of specific complaints, it transpires that students from Luxembourg (or other Member States) are subject to an administrative procedure which bears no reasonable relation to the needs otherwise served by the equivalence procedure and which could constitute an obstacle to student mobility, the Commission may consider instituting new infringement proceedings against Belgium under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/497 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/497

---

(2004/C 84 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Revamped Olympic Airlines

On 29 August the Greek Transport Minister, Mr Christos Verelis, tabled an amendment in Parliament announcing the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, to be called Olympic Airlines. This new company will be exclusively concerned with flight operations inherited from the merger of the relevant branches of Olympic Airways, Olympic Aviation and Macedonian Airlines. The minister also said that Olympic Airlines would employ 1 850 people and have capital of EUR 140 million. He stated that Macedonian Airlines provided the legal framework for the creation of the new company, while the procedure for spinning off operations was entirely in line with Community and national legislation.

| 1. | Was the Commission regularly briefed during the procedure for the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, as the Greek Government has declared? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Was the Commission regularly briefed during the procedure for the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, as the Greek Government has declared?

| 2. | To what extent does the Commission consider the specific solution compatible with Community law, and how safe are the jobs of employees in this new company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

To what extent does the Commission consider the specific solution compatible with Community law, and how safe are the jobs of employees in this new company?

| 3. | How and when does the Commission intend to intervene in this specific case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How and when does the Commission intend to intervene in this specific case?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission had regular contacts with the Greek authorities regarding the proposed privatisation of Olympic Airways. However, the information received was relatively incomplete. In order to speed up the transmission of information, following passage of the privatisation law on 5 September 2003, the Commission adopted a decision on 8 September 2003 enjoining Greece to send it any relevant information concerning the privatisation of Olympic Airways. The Commission received a reply from the Greek authorities, dated 11 September 2003. This is now being examined.

As the Commission does not have all the details of the proposed privatisation, it cannot give an opinion on its compliance with Community law. Moreover, at this stage no information is available on the social aspects of the plan, or the arrangements for winding up activities which will not be taken over by the new company.

The Commission is still in close contact with the Greek authorities, who have undertaken to send it the final privatisation plan before it is implemented, so that the Commission may give an opinion on its compliance with Community law.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/498 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/498

---

(2004/C 84 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   GM crops

On 2nd September 2003, in response to a request for the banning of GM crops in Upper Austria, Commissioner Wallström said ‘I have, of course, full respect for the concerns of the Austrian authorities for the protection of the environment and human health, and have no problem to recognise that co-existence is an important issue to be addressed. However, I would like to point out that these are common concerns, shared by many regions across Europe, for which it is possible to find a viable response within the existing legal framework.’

Would the Commission please tell us what it considers to constitute a ‘viable response’ for regions such as Upper Austria or the south-west of England, where organic farming is an important sector of agriculture?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to ensure co-existence between conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. This is reflected by the commitment of the Commission under Action 17 of its Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology — A strategy for Europe (1), to address co-existence.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the protection of human health and the environment, is and has always been taken into account as part of the risk assessment under the authorising legislation for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment was identified during this assessment then approval of that GMO would either not be granted or conditions included in the consent to address that risk.

Since only authorised GMOs can be cultivated in the Union, and the environmental and health aspects are covered by Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2), the pending issues still to be addressed in the context of co-existence concern the economic aspects (monetary losses) associated with the admixture of GM and non GM-crops.

A new article to address co-existence from this perspective will be introduced into Directive 2001/18/EC allowing Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. This article was adopted in the framework of negotiations during the second reading of the proposal (3) on GM food and feed.

However, Member States are not free to take any measure they want. The measures have to be consistent with Community legislation and the principles of the Common Market. Member States are, for instance, not allowed to contravene Article 22 a of Directive 2001/18/EC, which states that Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of authorised GMOs.

Furthermore, in July 2003, the Commission produced a Recommendation on guidelines for co-existence (4) in order to assist Member States in the development and implementation of appropriate measures. The ‘key word’ for the proposed co-existence measures is proportionality, which means that the measures must be proportionate with respect to the goal they are intended to achieve.

Consequently, the guidelines provide the necessary recommendations to address co-existence. In terms of economic risk, the guidelines provide the principles on which Member States and their regions can operate in terms of national measures and include an indicative list of management measures which, depending on local or regional factors, could be implemented. These measures include, for example, isolation distances between fields, buffer zones or pollen barriers, crop rotation and planting arrangements for different flowering periods, etc.

The Commission has no objection to voluntary local arrangements between farmers and between farmers and the industry to ensure the absence of GM crops. Co-existence is not a new issue in agriculture and farmers have ample experience with the implementation of farm management practices to ensure purity standards in seed production or to segregate agricultural production lines. Specific varieties of crops, which deliver ‘quality traits’ are grown for example under voluntary arrangements between adjacent farmers and contractual requirements.

This constitutes the ‘viable response’ to which the Member of the Commission responsible for Environment referred to on 2 September 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 96 final.

(2)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3)  OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.

(4)  OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/499 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/499

---

(2004/C 84 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Installation of telecommunications masts

The rapid expansion in telecommunications has created a greater need for masts. Has the European Commission issued any guidelines on the siting of such masts, given the heightened awareness of the possible health risks? If not, is the European Commission aware of any guidelines issued by Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The siting of mobile phone masts is an issue, which as mentioned by the Honourable Member, is giving rise to further public concern. The Commission has already received several parliamentary questions on this topic (e.g. E-l155/03 by Mr Mauro and Mr Gargani (1), E-2821/02 by Mr Maaten (2), E-2900/02 by Mrs Breyer (3) and E-2901/02 by Mrs Breyer (4)).

On 12 July 1999 the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC to Member States limiting the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields from 0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (Ghz) (5). Full adherence to the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation ensures that users are provided with a high level of protection against both acute and long-term effects of non-ionising radiation across the whole spectrum. The limits recommended include a safety factor of 50 to cover possible long-term effects across the entire frequency range and also aims to protect against, as yet, non-documented non-thermal effects.

The opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicology-Ecotoxicity and the Environment on health effects associated to the exposure to electromagnetic fields published on 30 October 2001 has confirmed the validity of the Council Recommendation limits for radio frequencies and microwaves. This opinion is also in line with other national and international assessments of the scientific literature in this area.

The public perception of the risks posed by masts is at odds with measured exposure levels. The extremely rapid deployment of mobile networks over the last years, in many cases without consultation of the public, seems to be the main reason for this.

Measurements performed in various Member States, have demonstrated that the level to which the public is exposed is below the values recommended by the Council (normally by a factor of 100 to 100 000). In general the safety zone around masts is in the order of 4 (for a typical low power urban area base station) to 10 (rural area high power base station) metres in the horizontal direction and less than a metre in the vertical direction. Under normal circumstances the distance to the public is much larger. Exposure drops with the square of the distance, which explains the low exposure levels measured in practice. Exposure levels of mobile phones and for instance those close to broadcast transmitters, many of which have been in operation for many years are much higher.

The Commission is aware of local siting regulations in some Member States, which prescribe so-called ‘safety distances’ of 500 metre (m) and above. From the above one can conclude that these regulations are not based on scientific reasoning. Most Member States base their health regulations on the Council Recommendation and require masts to comply with its limits.

The European Standardisation Organisations, under mandate from the Commission, draft Harmonised European standards, which can be used to demonstrate that masts do not expose the public beyond the limits recommended by the Council. The first of these standards (EN 50385) has already been given legal effect within the framework of Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (6), which obliges manufacturers to ensure that their products do not give rise to adverse effects on health when used for their intended purpose. Further standards are under development and will standardise methods to determine the zone around base stations, within which the recommended limits would be exceeded and will standardise in-situ measurement methods.

Even though limits and standards are available, which to our best knowledge protect our citizens from potential adverse health effects, the Commission is closely following and financing research in this area and will react, if necessary, to any new scientific evidence not yet taken into consideration.

Based on the best scientific advice available, antennas for mobile communications, when installed to meet the safety levels provided in the Council Recommendation, do not give rise to health problems.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

(2)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 77.

(3)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

(4)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 52.

(5)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(6)  OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/501 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/501

---

(2004/C 84 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3109/03

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Hydrogenated fats

In view of reservations expressed regarding the safety of hydrogenated fats, is the Commission prepared to launch an initiative which would see the potential health risk of hydrogenated fats being clearly indicated on product labelling? Furthermore, has any consideration been given to the outright ban of this substance?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Hydrogenation enables vegetable and animal oils to be transformed into solid fat, also making it saturated. The result of the hydrogenation process, together with other practices such as the de-odorisation process of oils and fats, is a change in the shape of fat molecules. Therefore, the natural configuration of the fatty acids molecules, known as cis configuration, very often changes into a different one, known as trans configuration. The above practices, which are used for many product applications, may lead to unacceptable amounts of trans fatty acids.

It is known that high intakes of certain saturated fatty acids are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Recently, reservations have also been expressed regarding trans fatty acids in the diet. Consequently, the Commission has asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to evaluate the evidence on the effect on health of trans fatty acids and how the effect, if any, compares to the effect on health of other types of fatty acids in the diet. The EFSA has been asked to provide a scientific opinion by the end of May 2004.

Regarding the labelling of foods, Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1) indicates that when a food contains hydrogenated oils or fats the description ‘hydrogenated’ must accompany the indication of a hydrogenated oil or fat in the labelling of the food. Council Directive 90/496/EC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs (2) includes the possibility for the declaration of the saturated fatty acids in the nutrition labelling. The question of the inclusion or not of trans fatty acids in the nutrition labelling on foods is being considered within the context of an ongoing review of Directive 90/49 6/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2)  OJ L 276, 6.10.1990.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/501 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/501

---

(2004/C 84 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Problems regarding the Attica suburban railway project

Great concern is being expressed in Greece regarding progress made by the suburban railway project with numerous reports recently appearing in the Greek press describing the situation as extremely serious. It is regarded as unlikely that the project will be completed in time for the Olympic Games. In particular, the Doukissi Plakentia — Olympic Stadium section is a very long way behind schedule because of work being carried out simultaneously on the Attica Highway and the metro. Serious problems are arising regarding the Neratziotissa station where the suburban line will meet the HSAP electric line, designs having failed to take account of the Attica Highway running below the station, which is now creating major construction problems.

In view of the fact that funding under the third CFS has been earmarked for the suburban rail project, is the Commission aware of the problems arising and the fact that the project is behind schedule? What is its general assessment regarding progress made?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/502 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/502

---

(2004/C 84 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3171/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Progress towards completion of the Athens tramway

Recently grave concern has been expressed in the Greek press regarding progress made towards completion of the Athens tramway with reports indicating that, although work is well behind schedule, contractors are reneging on their undertakings regarding increased manning levels on the project. It appears highly unlikely that the work will be completed in time for the Olympic Games and alternative solutions are already being considered, including a reduction in the number of tram stops, to cover increased demand over this period. Furthermore, the scheduled tram route from the centre to the coast will encounter dozens of crossings and it is not at all clear how the traffic lights will be regulated so as to give it priority, the preferred solution appearing to be the stationing of traffic police at those points where tram and automobile meet!

| 1. | In view of the fact that funding has been earmarked for the tramway project under the third CSF, what view does the Commission take of progress made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the fact that funding has been earmarked for the tramway project under the third CSF, what view does the Commission take of progress made?

| 2. | What information does the Commission have concerning the issues being raised by the Greek press? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What information does the Commission have concerning the issues being raised by the Greek press?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3170/03 and E-3171/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission knows about the articles in the Greek press on delays in construction of the Athens Suburban Railway and the Athens Tramway.

The decision to grant European financial assistance for these two projects (included in the 3rd Community Support Framework for Greece) followed a very positive assessment of the benefits they would afford the Attica Region and a finding that they could be completed during the present programming period (2000 to 2006). Completion in time for the 2004 Olympic Games would significantly improve public transport facilities during them but was not imposed as a condition for granting assistance.

Our information is that the delay in construction of the Doukissis Plakentias-SKA stretch of the railway track has been caused by problems of compatibility between the basic infrastructure put in place by the Attica Highway authorities and the technical specifications of the railway line, which is to lie between the two carriageways of the Highway. These problems do not affect the section between the Airport and Doukissis Plakentias, which is of particular importance for the Olympic Games.

In the case of the Tramway the delay appears to be a limited one affecting only the line between the city centre and the sea. The line along the seafront, the more important one for the Olympic Games, is apparently progressing as scheduled. It is of course important that when the Tramway comes into operation all necessary safety requirements are met.

We do not consider that the delays that have occurred up to now threaten completion of the railway project and the two tramway lines during the present Structural Fund programming period.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/503 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/503

---

(2004/C 84 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Angola — food contingency plan

According to the media the World Food Programme (WFP), which is currently affected by the greatest global food shortage in its 40 years of existence, will be forced to adopt a contingency plan in Angola to tackle the shortage of food for the populations it is assisting, because of delays in the delivery of international donations.

The WFP's spokesman Marcelo Spina has said that the portion of food aid for each recipient has been halved, but that the crisis is not due to a lack of or reduction in international donations, but merely logistic problems encountered by the donor countries.

He also claims that the WFP has already secured more than 80 % of the resources needed for the operation.

According to the WFP there are now 2,2 million displaced persons, refugees and other beneficiaries in Angola, the highest number in the last few years.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it can confirm the existence of the WFP contingency plan and the circumstances justifying it; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it can confirm the existence of the WFP contingency plan and the circumstances justifying it;

| — | whether the European Union has taken or plans to take any additional or supplementary measures to tackle the humanitarian emergency resulting from the delay in the arrival of international donations; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the European Union has taken or plans to take any additional or supplementary measures to tackle the humanitarian emergency resulting from the delay in the arrival of international donations;

| — | what it considers should be the main contribution the Union might make in this emergency situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

what it considers should be the main contribution the Union might make in this emergency situation;

| — | what explanation there is for the fact that the humanitarian situation in Angola has worsened again after having improved? |
| --- | --- |

—

what explanation there is for the fact that the humanitarian situation in Angola has worsened again after having improved?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission can confirm that a World Food Programme (WFP) contingency plan exists to tackle the shortage of food for the population in Angola. The emergency situation is not, however, the result of missing contributions from international donors, but rather of delayed and damaged WFP maize shipments, as confirmed in a recent press release from this organisation. Consequently, an additional Community contribution to address this specific situation, in addition to its already substantial humanitarian assistance, is neither advisable nor foreseen. Among the Commission's activities to assist the Angolan population in its critical situation the EUR 30 million Emergency Programme to Support the Peace Process, adopted in September 2002 and currently under implementation, is of particular relevance. This programme includes emergency medical assistance, the distribution of seeds and tools, food aid to discourage consumption of the seeds and humanitarian de-mining. In addition ECHO'S humanitarian interventions will reach EUR 21 to 23 million this year, while the Food Security Budget Line provided food aid and seeds and tools worth EUR 18 million in 2003.

As Angola continues to make the transition from emergency relief to rehabilitation and development, the Commission's intervention will take a more structured approach than in the past, when responding to crises was its predominant task. With specific regard to food security, one of the focal sectors of the Community-Angola cooperation strategy, the Commission has opted for a progressive reduction of food aid in kind, because this carries strong risks of creating dependency.

Instead through its activities, it seeks to increase the production and processing of, and trade in, agricultural products, and to strengthen local associations. In addition, efforts will be made in the longer term to support the national ministries concerned and consolidate the decentralisation of decision-making.

For a number of reasons the Commission does not share the view that the humanitarian situation in Angola has deteriorated. First, an increase in the number of recipients of emergency assistance is not necessarily an indicator of a worsening humanitarian situation; the increased number rather reflects improvements in access throughout the country, following the consolidation of the peace process.

Second, as peace leads to greater security throughout the country, refugees from neighbouring countries are returning home. While this has increased the caseload, it does not indicate an aggravation of the humanitarian situation.

Third, food security is subject to regular, seasonal reductions, since Angola still suffers limited harvests and poor agricultural yields. Once the harvest has been gathered, what little food is produced is quickly consumed. Furthermore, the country's crumbling infrastructure means that with the onset of the rainy season, it becomes much more difficult to distribute food effectively. The rains and the harvest are twice-yearly events, so the resulting reduction in food security has been a regular, if wholly undesirable, phenomenon. It is best addressed through the rehabilitation of the agricultural sector, and in this the Community is actively engaged in Angola.

Nevertheless, the Commission is prepared to assist further in emergency situations, should the need arise.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/504 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/504

---

(2004/C 84 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring them into Member States with the strictest controls

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that many relatively cheap packaged foodstuffs which originate outside the EU contain remarkably high levels of residues of toxic preservatives, antibiotics and veterinary medicines, including nitrofurans in prawns, chloramphenicol in pigs and chickens which have been fed on fish waste, and, increasingly, the carcinogenic malachite green in farmed salmon? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that many relatively cheap packaged foodstuffs which originate outside the EU contain remarkably high levels of residues of toxic preservatives, antibiotics and veterinary medicines, including nitrofurans in prawns, chloramphenicol in pigs and chickens which have been fed on fish waste, and, increasingly, the carcinogenic malachite green in farmed salmon?

| 2. | Should such imported goods be destroyed in the EU once they have been identified? Where Member States do destroy them, do they come under pressure from exporting states and importing businesses, partly because in other EU Member States such consignments are not destroyed but sent back to the country of origin on the basis of a promise that they will not be exported again, in which case there is no way of checking whether the promise has been honoured? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should such imported goods be destroyed in the EU once they have been identified? Where Member States do destroy them, do they come under pressure from exporting states and importing businesses, partly because in other EU Member States such consignments are not destroyed but sent back to the country of origin on the basis of a promise that they will not be exported again, in which case there is no way of checking whether the promise has been honoured?

| 3. | Do the businesses in question reroute such imports via ports and airports where it is assumed that the technically least sophisticated methods of checking goods are in use, smaller samples are taken or there is greater tolerance of any contaminants detected? Does such food consequently by a roundabout route reach Member States which would have rejected it if they had performed the checks themselves? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the businesses in question reroute such imports via ports and airports where it is assumed that the technically least sophisticated methods of checking goods are in use, smaller samples are taken or there is greater tolerance of any contaminants detected? Does such food consequently by a roundabout route reach Member States which would have rejected it if they had performed the checks themselves?

| 4. | Where do shortcomings exist in cooperation between national food inspection authorities and customs services? Are there instances in which consignments of packaged food which have been rejected at one EU port are released and sent on to other EU Member States where they are placed on the market for human or animal consumption or ultimately return to the Member State which previously rejected them? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where do shortcomings exist in cooperation between national food inspection authorities and customs services? Are there instances in which consignments of packaged food which have been rejected at one EU port are released and sent on to other EU Member States where they are placed on the market for human or animal consumption or ultimately return to the Member State which previously rejected them?

| 5. | What will the Commission do to improve checks on food which could make people ill and to combat imports, so that these measures comply with the most stringent requirements throughout the EU? If this proves impossible, will the scope be increased for Member States to reject imports of food originating outside the EU which has wrongly been permitted to enter other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What will the Commission do to improve checks on food which could make people ill and to combat imports, so that these measures comply with the most stringent requirements throughout the EU? If this proves impossible, will the scope be increased for Member States to reject imports of food originating outside the EU which has wrongly been permitted to enter other Member States?

Source: TV Nederland 3, Zembla, 30 October 2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

| 1. | Through its rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF), the Commission is informed about the findings by the Member States of certain risks in food and food products of animal origin that are checked in the border inspection posts at import. These risks are also associated with residues of certain veterinary drugs in food and food products. It is correct that residues of nitrofurans and chloramphenicol have been identified in certain imported food products such as poultry meat and fishery products and malachite green in imported salmon. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Through its rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF), the Commission is informed about the findings by the Member States of certain risks in food and food products of animal origin that are checked in the border inspection posts at import. These risks are also associated with residues of certain veterinary drugs in food and food products. It is correct that residues of nitrofurans and chloramphenicol have been identified in certain imported food products such as poultry meat and fishery products and malachite green in imported salmon.

| 2. | In accordance with Community legislation, consignments that are found not to comply with the Community import requirements are seized and may either be sent back to their origin, be used for another purpose or be destroyed. It is the competence of the Member State that carries out the import checks to decide on the measure it considers the most appropriate. However, destruction is compulsory when a serious risk for public health or animal health has been identified. From the substances mentioned above, chloramphenicol and nitrofurans fall into the category for which Member States have agreed that in the case of positive findings destruction of the consignments must take place. During the last year consignments of, among others, poultry meat and fishery products from third countries have been destroyed for this reason. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In accordance with Community legislation, consignments that are found not to comply with the Community import requirements are seized and may either be sent back to their origin, be used for another purpose or be destroyed. It is the competence of the Member State that carries out the import checks to decide on the measure it considers the most appropriate. However, destruction is compulsory when a serious risk for public health or animal health has been identified. From the substances mentioned above, chloramphenicol and nitrofurans fall into the category for which Member States have agreed that in the case of positive findings destruction of the consignments must take place. During the last year consignments of, among others, poultry meat and fishery products from third countries have been destroyed for this reason.

| 3. and 4. | The Commission is monitoring, by inspections of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), that the Member States execute their competence in accordance with the relevant Community legislation. Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC of the Council of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), states clearly that customs authorities shall not allow the importation of animal products unless proof is supplied that the relevant sanitary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results, and that the relevant veterinary entry document has been issued. The Commission has not identified important shortcomings concerning the co-operation between the custom services and the sanitary authorities in this respect. The Commission has also adopted a number of decisions to ensure that the Member States test certain products from certain third countries for some banned substances, such as chloramphenicol and nitrofurans, with an agreed frequency and that all Member States test for these substances to a very high level of performance. The FVO, at the end of 2002, has carried out a range of missions to Member States to inspect that Community legislation applicable to import checks and related safeguard measures is correctly applied. Through the RASFF, the Member State involved informs all the other Member States and the Commission of its rejection and the follow-up decision concerning the consignment. With this internal notification system, the inspections by the Commission, the described harmonisation and the obligation of Member States to destroy consignments in certain cases, the Commission is confident that the risk of circuitous routes at import as described in the question is contained. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

The Commission is monitoring, by inspections of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), that the Member States execute their competence in accordance with the relevant Community legislation. Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC of the Council of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), states clearly that customs authorities shall not allow the importation of animal products unless proof is supplied that the relevant sanitary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results, and that the relevant veterinary entry document has been issued. The Commission has not identified important shortcomings concerning the co-operation between the custom services and the sanitary authorities in this respect. The Commission has also adopted a number of decisions to ensure that the Member States test certain products from certain third countries for some banned substances, such as chloramphenicol and nitrofurans, with an agreed frequency and that all Member States test for these substances to a very high level of performance. The FVO, at the end of 2002, has carried out a range of missions to Member States to inspect that Community legislation applicable to import checks and related safeguard measures is correctly applied. Through the RASFF, the Member State involved informs all the other Member States and the Commission of its rejection and the follow-up decision concerning the consignment. With this internal notification system, the inspections by the Commission, the described harmonisation and the obligation of Member States to destroy consignments in certain cases, the Commission is confident that the risk of circuitous routes at import as described in the question is contained.

| 5. | The control at import of food and food products of animal origin is harmonised. It means that the documents including the health certificate and the identity of all consignments have to be checked. Depending on the risk, a certain percentage of the consignments are physically checked, which may include laboratory testing. In case of identified failures, the controlling Member State is obliged to test all following 10 consignments from the same origin and this Member State informs the other Member States and the Commission through the RASFF system. Furthermore, the Commission and the Member States must take any safeguard measure they consider necessary to protect the health of the consumer and animal health. In this way, the Commission has repeatedly taken safeguard measures at import from third countries. These measures vary from total or partial import bans or a suspension of approval of certain establishments to establishing a 100 % testing regime for consignments from certain origins. In case of total loss of trust in the competent authority of the exporting third country, the Commission may remove the country from the list of approved third countries from which Member States are authorised to import the product in question. To further improve the import control system, the Commission is preparing a new database system called Traces (Trade Control and Expert System). This new system will integrate the functionalities of the existing Animo system and of the delayed Shift system. A feasibility study has been presented in August 2003. Recently, Member States have agreed on financing the development of the system. It is planned that Traces will be operational on 1 April 2004. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The control at import of food and food products of animal origin is harmonised. It means that the documents including the health certificate and the identity of all consignments have to be checked. Depending on the risk, a certain percentage of the consignments are physically checked, which may include laboratory testing. In case of identified failures, the controlling Member State is obliged to test all following 10 consignments from the same origin and this Member State informs the other Member States and the Commission through the RASFF system. Furthermore, the Commission and the Member States must take any safeguard measure they consider necessary to protect the health of the consumer and animal health. In this way, the Commission has repeatedly taken safeguard measures at import from third countries. These measures vary from total or partial import bans or a suspension of approval of certain establishments to establishing a 100 % testing regime for consignments from certain origins. In case of total loss of trust in the competent authority of the exporting third country, the Commission may remove the country from the list of approved third countries from which Member States are authorised to import the product in question. To further improve the import control system, the Commission is preparing a new database system called Traces (Trade Control and Expert System). This new system will integrate the functionalities of the existing Animo system and of the delayed Shift system. A feasibility study has been presented in August 2003. Recently, Member States have agreed on financing the development of the system. It is planned that Traces will be operational on 1 April 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/506 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/506

---

(2004/C 84 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3363/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Socio-economic impact of extractive industry in northern Europe

The mineral resources of the Baltic (Fennoscandian) Shield region are among the richest in the world. Many lucrative orebodies have been found there, containing, among other things, platinum, native gold, diamonds, and the like, and high-quality building stones as well as industrial minerals. As the area has still not been fully explored, there may be more orebodies to be found and profits to be had.

Given that it is the world's largest consumer of minerals, Europe would gain by exploiting the region's mineral deposits. At present, 75 % of the minerals used in Europe are imported from other parts of the world.

Fennoscandian orebodies lie mainly in sparsely populated areas, where the employment situation is unremittingly poor. One medium-sized gold mine, for example, could provide direct employment for between 100 and 150 people. Expanding extractive industry would also bring substantial benefits for the supply of services and the local economy.

The Union should take account of the opportunities offered by the Fennoscandian mineral deposits when it draws up regulations and legislation. It is important that the new directive on mining waste should not make it difficult to open new mines. The concept of waste should be so defined that harmless by-products of mining operations are not, as such, encompassed within the definition. Fennoscandian extractive industry has always observed stringent environmental guidelines, and the technology that it uses is highly advanced. Consequently, neither the mines existing in the region nor any future mines constitute a threat to the environment.

It is vital for the future of primary production that the Commission draw up a special action programme for extractive industry so as to allow not only for environment-related requirements, but also for the sustainable economic use of natural resources and the possible regional impact. What is the Commission doing to achieve those ends? Is it willing to pursue a specific action programme for extractive industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is actively working to ensure that the Union's extractive industries operate within the framework of sustainable development. This means achieving an appropriate balance between enhancing the social and economic importance of the industry and protecting the environment. The Raw Materials Supply Group, chaired by Directorate General (DG) Enterprise, provides a forum for dialogue between Member States, Candidate Countries, the extractive industries and other stakeholders, to identify the key issues affecting the competitiveness of the industry and to agree on actions to take this forward. The Communication on ‘Promoting sustainable development in the EU non-energy extractive industry’ (1) made a first step to develop this dialogue, and has been followed by work to develop sustainable development indicators for the industry. A first report on this work is to be published on the Europa website in 2004.

The proposed Directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries (2) seeks to prevent or reduce environmental pollution and in particular to prevent accidents such as those that occurred recently at Baia Mare (Romania) and Aznalcóllar (Spain), which not only cause significant environmental damage, but also have wide socio-economic effects (including harming the image of the extractive industry as a whole, which could hamper future permitting procedures). The proposal aims at establishing a level-playing field and focuses on those aspects of the management of waste which present the greatest risk to the environment and human health, such as the operation of large tailings ponds and spoil heaps containing hazardous wastes or dangerous substances. The proposal provides a more limited set of requirements for less hazardous waste, which are proportionate to the level of risk they present. The proposal is now before the Parliament and the Council for decision.

While there are no plans for a special action programme for the extractive industry, the Commission will continue to cooperate with the industry on issues related to its competitiveness, within the framework of sustainable development. Furthermore, the Union's Northern Dimension initiative already addresses the special regional development challenges facing northern Europe, and provides a common framework for the promotion of policy dialogue and concrete co-operation. The Second Northern Dimension Action Plan (2004-2006) specifically recognises that the region is rich in natural resources and that these resources are crucial to the economic development of local communities.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 265 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 319 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/507 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/507

---

(2004/C 84 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3409/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Appointment of privatisation advisers for the Post Office Savings Bank

On 24 October Nikos Christodoulakis, the Greek Minister for the Economy and Finance, announced the decision to privatise the Post Office Savings Bank and to appoint the firm J P Morgan as privatisation advisers. The official decisions of the Interministerial Privatisation Committee on the Post Office Savings Bank and the appointment of privatisation advisers have not yet been published. Nevertheless, according to reports in the Greek press, J P Morgan has already taken up its duties.

Is the direct appointment of privatisation advisers, without a competition, consistent with Community law? What procedures ought to have been followed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The question should be answered in the light of the services to be provided by the privatisation advisers in question. However, the nature of these services is not clear from the text of the question.

Therefore, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to communicate to it all relevant information. Furthermore, the Commission will request from the Greek authorities the necessary information to be able to establish whether or not there has been an infringement of public procurement Community legislation.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/508 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/508

---

(2004/C 84 E/0585)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Probable impact of the strike of employees at the National Statistical Service of Greece on the publication of European indicators

The strike by employees of the National Statistical Service of Greece following the continuing refusal of the relevant minister to receive workers' representatives and engage in discussions with them is in its sixth week. As a result of the strike it is impossible to publish crucial statistical indicators on various sectors (the economy industrial production, culture, health, etc.), including indicators concerning inflation.

How long is it since Eurostat received statistics from the Greek National Statistical Service?

What impact is this delay — which is set to continue — having on the publication of European indicators by Eurostat?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The strike by employees of the National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) appears to be of some impact on the ability of the Greek authorities to meet their Community statistical obligations.

For instance, some problems have occurred with regard to the timely delivery of current statistics. As an example, short-term business statistics have not been delivered since the start of the strike. Similar examples can be found in domains where the provision of statistical data is governed by gentlemen agreements. However, it is important to note that, as a whole, the effect on Union and Eurozone level data has been so far relatively small even if it is likely to imply a relative, but not substantial, fall in quality due to the need for estimates to be included for Greece.

The disruption of work might also have an impact which will continue after the end of the strike. For example, Eurostat has already been informed that Greece would probably be unable to respect the timetable for delivery of data for the 2003 Farm Structure Survey. Similar effects may be expected in other sectors.

Furthermore, working relations may have been disrupted by the absence of Greek delegates from working party and other meetings. The negotiations for a number of grants to NSSG have equally been disrupted which may be expected to have an indirect impact in the medium to long term on the ability of Greece to meet some of its statistical obligations.

The Commission takes note however, that the strike is terminated and this will certainly contribute to the resumption of normal cooperation of the NSSG with the Commission.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/508 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/508

---

(2004/C 84 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for an Italian company linked to Romano Prodi

Does the Commission intend to respond to the questions raised by various newspapers (Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, European Voice) concerning the fact that since 1999 — the year in which Romano Prodi became Commission President — the EU has paid EUR 15 million to ItalTrend, an Italian development aid consultancy with its registered office in Reggio Emilia, in which Sylvia Prodi, a niece of Romano Prodi, has been employed since 1994 and is currently assistant to the director Silvana Garavelli?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission considers that it has already provided full answers through its spokesman to the questions raised by various press organs, including those cited by the Honourable Member. The Commission wishes to point out that cooperation with Italtrend in the area concerned, i.e. development aid, goes back at least as far as 1992. Silvia Prodi, President Prodi's niece, has worked on projects covered by contracts with Italtrend in the nuclear safety field as a nuclear engineer since 1994. On 31 December 2003, the value of contracts signed with Italtrend since 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 7,97 million. Payments made to the company from 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 39,84 million, of which EUR 35,3 million (equal to 89 %) was paid under contracts signed prior to 1 September 1999 and EUR 4,54 million under contracts signed after 1 September 1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/509 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/509

---

(2004/C 84 E/0587)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3852/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Appointments and transparency in the Commission

How many members of the Commissioners' private offices have been appointed to posts in Commission departments with functions and/or grades that are senior to those they previously held?

Can the Commission also show that the appointments were based on merit rather than the now traditional practice of finding important posts for the large number of staff employed in the private offices of the President and Commissioners at the end of each term of office?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, to date during its period of office, 25 officials have been assigned to more senior posts — in terms of duties and/or grade — in other departments after a period of secondment in a Commissioner's Cabinet.

Of these 25 officials:

| — | 4 were appointed Director-General or Deputy Director-General; |
| --- | --- |

—

4 were appointed Director-General or Deputy Director-General;

| — | 7 were appointed Director; |
| --- | --- |

—

7 were appointed Director;

| — | 14 were appointed Head of Unit and, of these:






  — | 6 were appointed Head of Unit at the same grade; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

14 were appointed Head of Unit and, of these:

—

6 were appointed Head of Unit at the same grade;

| — | 3 were appointed Head of Unit at a higher grade (A3); |
| --- | --- |

—

3 were appointed Head of Unit at a higher grade (A3);

| — | 5, who had already been Heads of Unit in the past, were given a higher grade (A3). |
| --- | --- |

—

5, who had already been Heads of Unit in the past, were given a higher grade (A3).

Summary table — Officials promoted after a period of secondment to a Member's private office

| Initial grade | Grade in new post | Promotion in terms of duties | Promotion in terms of grade |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A2 | Al | 4 | 4 |
| A3 | A2 | 7 | 7 |
| A4 | A3 | 3 | (1) 8 |
| A4 | A4 | 4 | 0 |
| A5 | A5 | 2 | 0 |

Initial grade

Grade in new post

Promotion in terms of duties

Promotion in terms of grade

A2

Al

4

4

A3

A2

7

7

A4

A3

3

(1) 8

A4

A4

4

0

A5

A5

2

0

These appointments complied with all the rules in force with regard to promotions. The same standard procedures for promotion which apply to all other members of staff were scrupulously followed.

---

(1)  Three of whom were also given a promotion in terms of duties.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/510 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/510

---

(2004/C 84 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3884/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Alcatel Italia: suspected infringement of rules on funding granted by the EU

It emerged from a meeting held with the trade union delegations from Alcatel Italia S.p.A. in Brussels in November 2003 that the company has benefited in the past from favourable terms for funding production activities in depressed areas of Italy, in accordance with the terms of Italian Law No 488/92, by means of EU co-financing.

This law obliges the beneficiary company to respect, ‘inter alia’, certain parameters in terms of both increasing jobs, on the basis of the funding received, and abiding by a multiannual investment plan.

Furthermore, it would seem that Alcatel Italia has carried out an outsourcing plan, without adequately informing the workers, and contravening the ban on altering the kinds of contracts already in force.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | what kinds of EU funding in particular Alcatel Italia has received? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what kinds of EU funding in particular Alcatel Italia has received?

| 2. | what kind of investment plan Alcatel drew up to step up productivity and increase employment, in accordance with the provisions of Law No 488/92? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what kind of investment plan Alcatel drew up to step up productivity and increase employment, in accordance with the provisions of Law No 488/92?

| 3. | whether it considers that the granting of funding to businesses can be made subject to an ethical and social clause? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it considers that the granting of funding to businesses can be made subject to an ethical and social clause?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

Community funding received by A. Italia is related to:

| — | Direct funding (Fifth Framework Programme):






  — | Moicane project EUR 2 663 000, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Direct funding (Fifth Framework Programme):

—

Moicane project EUR 2 663 000,

| — | Smacks project EUR 204 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Smacks project EUR 204 000;

| — | Indirect funding (through L488, production activities in depressed area of Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

Indirect funding (through L488, production activities in depressed area of Italy).

As regards the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), cofunding for Alcatel was limited to aid intended for modernising Battipaglia. This aid amounts to EUR 3 034 million for the 1994-1999 programming period and to EUR 1 835 million for the period 2000-2006. Aid for the Maddaloni, Frosinone and Reti plants was not cofinanced by the ERDF.

The Commission is not in a position to provide information concerning the Alcatel investment plan to step up productivity and increase employment according to Law 488.

According to information from Alcatel, A. Italia has withdrawn the last two L488 applications, decreed in 2001:

| — | 51437/11 (Maddaloni extension); |
| --- | --- |

—

51437/11 (Maddaloni extension);

| — | 19328/11 (Battipaglia extension). |
| --- | --- |

—

19328/11 (Battipaglia extension).

The investment foreseen in the applications has been carried out, but due to adverse market conditions, it was not possible to fulfil the planned increase in employment. For this reason the two applications have been withdrawn and no funding has been granted to Alcatel Italia.

The four Structural Funds allow the European Union to grant financial assistance to resolve structural, economic and social problems. As a general rule, the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) finance development programmes which have been allocated an individual budget. These programmes are the product of joint negotiations between the national, regional and local authorities (they establish a list of eligible areas), the economic and social partners and other relevant bodies. The managing authorities appointed by the Member States will select the projects to be financed and supervise their implementation.

The website of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy (Regio) contains summaries of most of the programmes that have been officially adopted by the Commission (1).

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/prordn/index_en.cfm?gv_pay=IT&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=l&gv_the=ALL

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/511 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/511

---

(2004/C 84 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3930/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

Under Article 26(4) of N 1914/1990, ‘all the special arrangements which apply to the Agricultural Bank of Greece, with particular reference to its substantive and procedural privileges, to its immunities in respect of tax and other matters, to its debt instruments, to the guaranteeing of its debts and in general to its legal personality as an entity possessing rights and subject to obligations’ remain in force and are applied unchanged even following the conversion of the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) into a limited liability company. On the basis of this provision the ATE, in its transactions with its customers, makes use of the privileges granted to it by Articles 8-15 and 34(8) of N 4332/1929, under which the legal, procedural and substantive guarantees for those dealing with the ATE, and in particular its debtors, are set aside. The Commission has also received a complaint on this subject from the firm Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. (reply from the Agriculture Directorate-General No 31427/24.11.2003).

Since the retention and application by the ATE of the above-mentioned privileges, which is contrary to Community law, is onerous for those doing business with it and deprives them of all rights of defence, what does the Commission intend to do to put a stop to the violation of the rights of those dealing with the ATE and to eliminate the distortion of competition conditions with respect to other credit institutions?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

In 1997 and in 2001, the Commission received two complaints concerning the legislative privileges benefiting the Agricultural Bank of Greece. The complainants criticized these privileges considering that they amount to the grant of illegal State aids.

According to a constant case-law, ‘only advantages granted directly or indirectly through State resources are aids within the meaning of the Treaty’ (see case C-379/98, Preussenelektra, ECR (2001) p. I-2099, §58). To the extent that the legislative privileges benefiting to the Agricultural Bank of Greece do not affect public resources, the Commission considered that they are not State aids within the meaning of the EC treaty. Nevertheless, the Commission considered that Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty could apply to fiscal advantages in favour of the Bank. Accordingly, it opened an enquiry which revealed several tax advantages.

The discussions between the Commission and the Greek authorities lead to the abolition of these advantages, as confirmed by letter dated 24 February 2004, referring to the adoption of the requested amendments (Greek Official Journal of the 10th February 2004, Law 3229 - FEK 38/A/10.2.2004).

The information provided by the Honourable Member and received through the complaint of 2003 refers to further privileges, but does not point to a clear infringement of the banking Directive (Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000, on the taking up and pursuit of the activity of credit institutions (1)) or of the EC Treaty.

However, the Commission services instructing the file will ask for clarifications from the Greek authorities on the national provisions stipulating privileges of the Agricultural Bank of Greece.

---

(1)  OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/512 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/512

---

(2004/C 84 E/0590)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3955/03

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Interpretation of environmental information directives

The concept ‘internal communications’ used in Article 3(4) and Article 4(l)(e) respectively of Directives 90/313/ΕΕ (1) and 2003/4/EC (2) concerning public access to environmental information causes serious interpretation problems when the attempt is made to apply it in practice.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that any simple process by which data and factual information are exchanged between or within authorities constitutes ‘internal communications’ for the purposes of the directives? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that any simple process by which data and factual information are exchanged between or within authorities constitutes ‘internal communications’ for the purposes of the directives?

| 2. | If not, in the light of what substantive or formal criteria ought information processes which constitute ‘internal communications’ as referred to in the above directives to be distinguished from those which are not excepted on the grounds of constituting ‘internal communications’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, in the light of what substantive or formal criteria ought information processes which constitute ‘internal communications’ as referred to in the above directives to be distinguished from those which are not excepted on the grounds of constituting ‘internal communications’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment and Directive 2003/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC are addressed to the Member States and that requests for access to environmental information are handled according to the applicable national laws. These two Directives allow the Member States to apply some restrictions to the right of access to information. However, the Commission is of the opinion that their purpose is to give free access to information on the environment that is held by public authorities and that, therefore, any exception must be interpreted narrowly.

Both Article 3(3) of Directive 90/313/EEC (3) and Article 4(l)(e) of Directive 2003/4/EC (4), provide that requests for information may be refused if these concern internal communications. The Commission is of the opinion that internal communications are indeed the processes by which data and factual information are exchanged within public authorities. Internal communications prepare an administrative decision; it must be possible for an administration to lay down in writing the different arguments in favour of or against a decision on a specific problem, without these internal deliberations being made public. The essential element is, after all, the administrative decision and its possible justification, not the way in which this decision was reached. However, this does not mean that Article 4(l)(e) of Directive 2003/4/EC allows or even obliges access to be refused to every internal communication. Indeed, Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2003/4/EC explicitly states that access to internal communications may only be refused taking into account the public interest served by disclosure.

The interpretation of both Directives lies, in the last resort, with the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(2)  OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26.

(3)  Article 3(3): A request for information may be refused where it would involve the supply of unfinished documents or data or internal communications, or where the request is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner.

(4)  Article 4(l)(e): Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused if the request concerns internal communications, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/513 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/513

---

(2004/C 84 E/0591)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3964/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Endocrine disrupters in drinking water — reaction to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2565/03

In a number of Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany, research has been carried out into endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs). The Commission, too, has had similar studies drawn up. It is, therefore, widely known that phthalic acid esters (plasticisers) are passed into drinking water from the pipe system. Deep-well readings confirm the ubiquitous presence of plasticisers. Various plasticisers are not classified as genetically harmful, but they do damage testes, kidneys and liver. In animal experiments, they have been shown to damage reproductive capacity and interfere in genital development. A new study carried out by the University of Erlangen shows that the absorption of DEHP (a plasticiser) is significantly higher than had been assumed hitherto. The Federal German Risk-Assessment Institute has drawn the findings of that study to the attention of the European Chemicals Bureau.

| 1. | How is the Commission intending to protect European consumers, both male and female, in application of the precautionary principle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How is the Commission intending to protect European consumers, both male and female, in application of the precautionary principle?

| 2. | Is the Commission planning to introduce limit values? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission planning to introduce limit values?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

The need to regulate endocrine disraptors in drinking water was discussed in the Seminar on Drinking Water organised by the Commission on 27/28 October 2003, with participation by Member States, the scientific community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The seminar concluded that it is not possible to set limit values for individual EDCs in the Drinking Water Directive (1) at this point, as knowledge needed to evaluate the potential human health risk is insufficient. Sufficient and reliable data on the occurrence of EDCs in both raw water and drinking water are not yet available and validated bioassays for screening the total potential effects of EDCs are lacking. More data are needed to evaluate the risk of human consumption of drinking water, especially at places with high risk factors for pollution.

There is evidence of the release of EDCs from materials to drinking water/bottled water. Such products and materials used for storage and distribution of water intended for human consumption that are permanently incorporated in construction works are regulated and fall within the scope of the Construction Products Directive (CPD) (2) and are referred to in the Drinking Water Directive (DWD). The issue is currently addressed within the work done for the establishment of a ‘European Acceptance Scheme’ (EAS) under the CPD Directive. The EAS is intended to be a single system of regulatory framework and of supporting test methods covering the acceptance of construction products used in contact with water intended for human consumption.

However, as far as the possibility that phthalates are passed into drinking water from the pipe system is concerned, the Commission does not have evidence to this effect. Water pipes made from PVC consist of hard PVC, which is normally not plasticized by the addition of plasticisers.

Regarding phthalates (plasticizers), a series of five risk assessments has been initiated by the Commission under the Existing Substances Regulation (3). Three risk assessments have in the meantime been finalised and are available on the web site of the European Chemicals Bureau (4). The Commission is now in the process of developing risk reduction strategies. Possible restrictions need to be based on the outcome of the risk assessment and must be scientifically defendable, while taking into account the precautionary principle.

For two phthalates, DEHP and BBP, the risk assessments have not yet been finalised. In the case of DEHP, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) has recently published an opinion on the results of the draft risk assessment (5). The draft risk assessment will now be revised by the rapporteur in the light of this opinion. The revision is also likely to affect the risk characterisation for man exposed indirectly via the environment, which will allow the Commission to draw a conclusion if, and under which circumstances, there is a risk from DEHP as an endocrine disrupter.

Future limit values for the total potential endocrine effects can only be proposed once validated analytical tools are available. A safe level for the total of EDCs should be based on toxicological data and bioassay values for total EDC potency.

---

(1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2)  Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(4)  http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-chemicals/

(5)  Adopted by the CSTEE during its 41th plenary meeting on 8 January 2004; http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/set/documents/out214_en.pdf

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/515 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/515

---

(2004/C 84 E/0592)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3976/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Complexity of simplifying the Community acquis

The Commission informed the institutions of what it identifies as a key objective of its White Paper on European Governance, simplification, in two communications (1).

According to a timetable given on page 7 of COM(2003) 71 of 11 February, this simplification is to culminate in the adoption of ‘methodology and procedures’ sometime after the end of 2004.

The mid-term review of the CAP and its implementing legislation was subsequently highlighted in COM(2003) 623 of 24 October as a step forward in the field of simplification, which is truly extraordinary.

Does the Commission not believe that it would be important to start by simplifying its so-called simplification process, making it intelligible, clear and concise?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

In the section of the communication Updating and simplifying the Community acquis (2) on methodology and procedures, the Commission proposed indicators for determining the order of priority of simplification work. The Council and Parliament were asked for their views on the indicators but have not yet replied to the Commission's requests.

In its first interim report on the implementation of the framework action (Updating and simplifying the Community ‘acquis’) (3), the Commission reviewed the implementation of the various actions proposed in its February 2003 communication (2). The report reveals that the Commission adopted 14 simplification proposals during the first stage of the framework action (February-September 2003) as well as four new simplification proposals which were not included in the February 2003 communication. These new proposals are in addition to the 18 simplification proposals before the legislative authority. The Commission hopes that the legislative authority will examine the outstanding proposals quickly.

With a view to identifying new policy sectors and acts where simplification may be possible, the Commission had also hoped, following its February 2003 communication, that it would receive the Council's and Parliament's comments. To date, these institutions have not made any suggestions to the Commission.

The Commission would add that, on its initiative, the three institutions signed the ‘better lawmaking’ interinstitutional agreement on 16 December 2003 providing a framework for legislative activity relating to simplification including the use of the ‘alternative’ instruments. The Commission hopes that this agreement will be implemented as quickly as possible with the definition of operational procedures for the examination of the simplification proposals for which Parliament and the Council set themselves a time limit of six months.

---

(1)  COM(2003)71 and COM(2003)623.

(2)  COM(2003)71 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 623 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/516 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/516

---

(2004/C 84 E/0593)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3999/03

by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Internal control standard 5 — ‘Sensitive functions’: Modalities relating to the implementation of compulsory mobility

According to the note of 8 May 2003 from the European Commission's Secretary-General, Director-General for Personnel and Administration and Director-General for the Budget, which followed the guidelines set out in the Commission Communication from Mrs Schreyer and Vice-President Kinnock (1), mobility for persons in ‘sensitive’ posts will enter into effect as from 1 January 2006.

If the aim of this measure is to prevent ‘clientelisation’ as well as offering a change of post, it must be ensured that the transferee does not, in his new position (if this is also sensitive), deal with companies, private individuals or organisations with whom he has had working relations in his previous position. Since clientelism has its basis in personal preference relationships and is not limited to specific professional fields, will this be taken into account?

If the persons concerned have preference in appointments to new posts, this status could impact on the career of other officials who not only have been planning a change in career for longer but also have priority in terms of qualifications, merit, knowledge and experience and have chosen the same post. Would this not be a form of discrimination that could be contested before the European Court of Justice?

What are the arguments leading to the belief that the unproven efficacy of this measure can offset the proven loss that arises whenever anyone with specialised experience relinquishes their duties?

Will this measure affect those officials who, despite not being responsible for payments, are still responsible for providing payment authorising officers with advice and assessments as regards the awarding of contracts and grants? If the objective is to prevent fraud, why is the same measure not envisaged for those posts where forms of internal preferential treatment can be granted (promotions, competitions) from which profit can also be derived?

Has the possibility of two officials alternating between the same two posts with fraudulent intent been taken into account?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the interest of the Honourable Member regarding implementation of Internal Control Standard No 5 on sensitive posts.

The note of 8 May 2003 from the Commission's Secretary-General, Director-General for Personnel and Administration and Director-General for the Budget, was clarified and complemented by a note from the Secretariat-General of 30 September 2003. That note confirms that mobility should be applied by 31 December 2003 for persons who have occupied an inherently sensitive post (2) for more than seven years, and that the rule of mobility will be applied every five years to all sensitive posts from 31 December 2004. The note also emphasises that mobility may be implemented by transferring the sensitive function to another post when the function in question concerns only a small part of the jobholder's tasks.

All Services were required to identify and draw up an inventory of all sensitive posts by 31 December 2003. Above and beyond the inherently sensitive posts, the categorising of a post as ‘sensitive’ takes a number of criteria into account that allow for the associated risks (such as ‘clientelism’ or the alternating of officials between the same two posts) to be assessed. Mitigating control measures are also defined. The capacity to influence or to take decisions, for example in the area of recruitment and staff management, is considered to be a condition which presents potential risks that could contribute to the sensitivity of a post or function.

The Commission initiative aims to avoid situations such as those that could arise where a person is dealing with the same procedures and interlocutors for a long time without appropriate mitigating control measures. Mobility does not mean that the expertise and knowledge are lost to the Institution. On the contrary, it means that the professional backgrounds of the persons concerned are broadened and can also benefit other Departments. Moreover, Internal Control Standard No 19 on ‘continuity of operations’ specifies that, in the case of officials who hand over their work to another official, a written handover file must be established.

In accordance with the rules in place, persons who have to move from a sensitive post do not enjoy any privilege or preferential treatment when they apply for another post. Their appointment to the new post is determined by the appropriateness of their expertise, profile and level of responsibility. Of course, those persons who encounter difficulties in finding another post can benefit from the career guidance support developed within the Commission through Reform.

The first wave of compulsory mobility for sensitive posts is currently underway. The exercise is being conducted within a framework which ensures the proper implementation of Internal Control Standard No 5 with minimum disruption to the Services, and it takes into account the needs of the individual staff members concerned.

---

(1)  SEC(2000)2203.

(2)  The inherently sensitive posts are defined as those relating to financial management and the so-called AIPN (appointing authority) and AHCC (authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/517 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/517

---

(2004/C 84 E/0594)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4043/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas for 2004

The Commission's proposal concerning the TAC and quota arrangements for 2004, based on the opinions of the ICES, entails significant reductions in the TAC and quota levels for 2004 and introduces a temporary system for management of the fishing effort. These proposals would involve a reduced number of fishing days in the period February-December 2004 (51 days less), as well as substantial cuts in TAC and quota levels for such species as monkfish, Norway lobster and hake, which, should they be implemented, would have a considerable adverse socio-economic impact on the fisheries sector and the regions that depend on it. Sustainable stocks are crucial to the preservation of fishing activity, and the fishermen themselves are those most concerned by the need to preserve fish stocks. This is demonstrated by, for instance, the measures voluntarily taken by Portuguese fishermen on sardine seine fishing. Nonetheless, the Commission's apparent concern for the sustainability of the Portuguese stocks lacks credibility in the light of its recent promotion of free access for the Spanish fleet to Portuguese waters and the consequent increased fishing effort.

Can the Commission state whether it has taken due account of the specific characteristics of the Portuguese fisheries sector? What measures will it take to offset the socio-economic impact of its proposal? If the state of stocks is so critical, can the Commission explain why it is not putting forward recuperation plans, which would include the necessary socio-economic compensation from the Community budget, and, in particular, the creation of a financial mechanism to compensate income losses for the fishermen and other fisheries sector workers affected?

Can the Commission state which fishermen's and vessel owners' organisations it heard before presenting its proposal, and to what degree those organisations were involved? What measures will it take to ensure that fishermen and vessel owners are genuinely involved in the decision-making process under the CFP?

What measures will the Commission take to enhance the reliability and credibility of the relevant scientific studies, notably among scientists and fishermen? Does it not consider that a more useful measure would be to undertake a real decentralisation of the CFP in the area of resource management? What measures is it taking on the other factors which affect fish stocks, such as pollution, maritime transport, etc?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission's TAC and quota proposals are based on scientific advice concerning the long-term sustainability and the short-term catch possibilities for stocks caught by Community fishers. A common approach is used for stocks of interest to all Member States, which is based on allowing as good short-term catching opportunities as are compatible with maintaining long-term sustainability of the resources. In many cases, the Commission has proposed TACs that are higher than advised by scientists in order to maintain better short-term catch possibilities. This includes a number of stocks of interest to Portugal.

The Commission does not foresee direct financial compensation for adjustments to TACs. Longer-term financial measures are foreseen in the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and in the Common Organisation of Markets, which provide for financial assistance for adapting the catching capacity of the fleet to the productive capacity of the resource, improvements in market stability and provisions for assistance in emergency circumstances.

During the Fisheries Council in December 2003, a political agreement was reached on the need to adopt recovery plans for southern hake and for Nephrops. The Commission foresees that the adoption of such plans will result in improved stability in the fisheries, better availability of fish, and improved catching conditions for the sectors concerned in the medium term. According to the reformed Common Fisheries Policy, when emergency measures are needed or when new recovery plans are adopted that require large short-term reductions in catches, certain additional financial subsidies may become available to the sector (Paragraph 13, Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (1)).

The Commission regularly consults the fisheries sector before preparing legislative proposals. Currently these consultations are held under the auspices of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) and that Committee is responsible for establishing its participation at regional workshops that are held concerning TACs and other issues. A workshop with the industry concerning the TAC and quota regulation was held in Brussels on 28 October 2003. During 2004 decisions will be taken concerning the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils that will ensure that a wider and deeper consultation process takes place.

Regarding scientific advice on fisheries, the Commission is taking two initiatives. A new memorandum of understanding has been agreed between the Commission and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea which formally extends the scope of fisheries advice to cover environmental, ecosystem and non-fishing effects on fish stocks and specifies better the way in which fisheries advice should be formulated, with more emphasis on long-term issues. In parallel, the Commission is working on better organising and improving the financial support for fisheries science in the Community, as described in the Commission's Communication on improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management (2).

Most of the fishery resources available to the Community are shared among several Member States, and many resources are also shared with third countries. Because of this, there are only limited opportunities for decentralising of fisheries management. In addition, Treaty obligations specify that the formulation of proposals concerning fishing opportunities form part of the exclusive right of initiative of the Commission.

The Commission's views on measures concerning management of the marine environment other than fisheries activities have been the subject of a Communication ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (3). The Commission envisages ‘inter alia’ the establishment of a marine policy with objectives, targets and measures for good practices involving marine habitats, including the reduction of pollution and the appropriate management of shipping practices.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2)  OJ C 47, 27.2.2003.

(3)  COM(2002) 539 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/519 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/519

---

(2004/C 84 E/0595)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4069/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   European Maritime Safety Agency

The European Council has finally decided on the seat of the European Maritime Safety Agency.

The decision was taken to locate it in Lisbon, which is to be welcomed, in view of the city's geographical position and facilities, as well as the large area covered by Portuguese waters — both off the shore of the continent and in the regions of the Azores and Madeira — which are crossed by important trans-Atlantic shipping corridors and traffic between the north and south of the Atlantic and between northern Europe and the Mediterranean.

For various political reasons it took a long time to reach the decision and it urgently needs to be implemented.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | when it expects to complete the final inauguration of the European Maritime Safety Agency in Lisbon and make it operational and whether it has already drawn up a timetable for this; |
| --- | --- |

—

when it expects to complete the final inauguration of the European Maritime Safety Agency in Lisbon and make it operational and whether it has already drawn up a timetable for this;

| — | how many staff will be involved in running the Agency, whether they have already been recruited and in accordance with what instruments and timetable; |
| --- | --- |

—

how many staff will be involved in running the Agency, whether they have already been recruited and in accordance with what instruments and timetable;

| — | out of the list of duties already established, what priority tasks will be allocated to the European Maritime Safety Agency and its directors as soon as it is fully launched in Lisbon? |
| --- | --- |

—

out of the list of duties already established, what priority tasks will be allocated to the European Maritime Safety Agency and its directors as soon as it is fully launched in Lisbon?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the decision taken by the representatives of the Member States meeting at Head of States or Government level in December 2003 to fix the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in Lisbon. Pending that decision and in line with Article 2 3 of the Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of 27 June 2002 (1), the Commission had to set up the Agency provisionally in Brussels in its own premises. Therefore, the Agency is already operational from its provisional location, has recruited core staff and proceeds in the realisation of its work programme for 2004.

The precise timetable for moving the Agency to Lisbon has not been fixed yet, but is presently the subject of discussions between the Portuguese Government and the Agency. The choice and preparation of adequate premises in Lisbon, as well as the completion of administrative procedures for moving the present office infrastructure and staff will obviously determine this timetable.

In January 2004, the Agency had a staff of 22 people (one official, 13 temporary agents and eight auxiliary agents). This work force will be reinforced on February 2004 with seven detached national experts, four temporary agents and two auxiliary agents. Furthermore, the selection of additional staff is in process for a number of posts published in November 2003 and December 2003. The establishment plan of the Agency for 2004, after enlargement, contains 55 posts (five officials and 50 temporary agents). The recruitment of detached national experts and a few auxiliary agents is also foreseen in the Agency administrative budget for 2004. It should be noted that the Agency has set up a website where all the calls for applications and recruitment notices appear (www.emsa.eu.int).

The Agency has adopted an ambitious Work Programme for 2004, targeting most of the tasks attributed to it by Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002. The Work programme of the Agency for 2005 will be determined by the Administrative Board of the Agency in October 2004, in line with article 10(2)(d) of the above Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/520 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/520

---

(2004/C 84 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4071/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   The Growth and Stability Pact again

After the public outcry caused by the Ecofin Council's deplorable decision concerning the repeated violation of the Growth and Stability Pact by France and Germany the echoes of which were heard in the European Parliament's debate, there is still great curiosity and some puzzlement about the Commission's real thoughts on the matter.

On the one hand, there has been frequent mention of the statements made by the President, Romano Prodi, who said the GSP was ‘stupid’ during an interview he gave to ‘Le Monde’, and of the polemic aroused by these statements.

On the other hand, we do not know whether or not the Commission will take the matter to the Court. First of all, soon after Ecofin's decision and with reference to the views of President Prodi and Commissioner Solbes, there were reports that the Commission, taking forceful and firm action, would do so. Later on it was reported that there was strong pressure against this, particularly from Germany and Austria, and since then there has been no news.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | whether the feelings openly expressed to a French newspaper regarding the ‘stupidity’ of the GSP in any way contributed to this serious lack of respect on the part of France and Germany, the countries of the ‘Franco-German axis’; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the feelings openly expressed to a French newspaper regarding the ‘stupidity’ of the GSP in any way contributed to this serious lack of respect on the part of France and Germany, the countries of the ‘Franco-German axis’;

| — | whether or not it intends to refer their disregard and Ecofin's controversial decision to the Court, whether the Commission has been under any pressure not to do so and, if so, from which Member States the pressure came; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether or not it intends to refer their disregard and Ecofin's controversial decision to the Court, whether the Commission has been under any pressure not to do so and, if so, from which Member States the pressure came;

| — | whether it does not consider that decisions such as that taken by Ecofin open the way for future infringements of the rules of the GSP, and that if they do and nothing is done about it, whether such infringements will be ‘legitimised’; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not consider that decisions such as that taken by Ecofin open the way for future infringements of the rules of the GSP, and that if they do and nothing is done about it, whether such infringements will be ‘legitimised’;

| — | whether it does not also consider that this kind of attitude points not to a ‘two-speed’ Europe but rather a ‘two-level’ Europe — a Europe of big and small countries, and that incidents such as this place the European Union in a critical situation of total disorder? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not also consider that this kind of attitude points not to a ‘two-speed’ Europe but rather a ‘two-level’ Europe — a Europe of big and small countries, and that incidents such as this place the European Union in a critical situation of total disorder?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

On 13 January 2004, the Commission adopted a three-pronged strategy to clarify and improve economic policy coordination and surveillance following the 25 November 2003 Ecofin Council conclusions (1).

As a first strand of this strategy, the Commission will continue the conduct of economic and budgetary surveillance for all Member States in the framework of the EC Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). It will continue to monitor developments for Member States in excessive deficit and base its recommendations on sound economic analysis and the principle of equal treatment.

As a second strand, the Commission, based on the experience of the five first years of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), will make new proposals for the strengthening of economic governance in the future. Improvements in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact will form part of this initiative.

Finally, consistent with its role as the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will seek to establish legal clarity and predictability regarding EMU related provisions of the EC Treaty. The Council adopted non-binding conclusions instead of taking a decision required by the law and the Commission has, therefore, decided to submit the Council conclusions to the scrutiny of the European Court of Justice.

---

(1)  Press release IP/04/35.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/521 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/521

---

(2004/C 84 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4076/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Widespread desiccation of pine trees in Greece

In many regions of Greece, and particularly in Attica, the widespread desiccation of pine trees has been observed. According to published information, this phenomenon is probably due, primarily or indirectly, to Marchalina Hellenica, a honey-producing insect which infests pines. This insect produces honeydew which constitutes the basis for the production of pine honey.

Owing to the importance of this insect for beekeeping, this insect has been spread over the last few years by inoculating a large number of pines. This action has been funded to the tune of some two million euros under the Second CSF through the Ministry of Agriculture.

Given the fact that the desiccation of pines hosting the insect Marchalina Hellenica appears to be quite widespread and poses a threat to pine forests in many regions of Greece, will the Commission say:

| 1. | Do any scientific data exist concerning the consequences of the spread of this insect through the inoculation of pines? Is the inoculation of pines with Marchalina Hellenica practised in other European countries for the production of pine honey? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do any scientific data exist concerning the consequences of the spread of this insect through the inoculation of pines? Is the inoculation of pines with Marchalina Hellenica practised in other European countries for the production of pine honey?

| 2. | Will it fund research to fully investigate the phenomenon of the desiccation of pines so that appropriate measures and steps can be taken to control and combat this phenomenon which threatens to destroy large areas of pine forest in Greece and to establish scientifically whether or not the insect Marchalina Hellenica is responsible for it? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it fund research to fully investigate the phenomenon of the desiccation of pines so that appropriate measures and steps can be taken to control and combat this phenomenon which threatens to destroy large areas of pine forest in Greece and to establish scientifically whether or not the insect Marchalina Hellenica is responsible for it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

| 1. | On 15 October 2003, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture invited experts to a workshop in order to discuss the recent outbreak of pine tree desiccation particularly affecting the region of Attica. They concluded that there is no direct cause/effect relationship between the presence of Marchalina hellenica and desiccation of trees of the genus Pinus but that the desiccation is a secondary damage brought about by i.a. climatic factors. To the Commission's knowledge, the deliberate spreading of M. hellenica in pine forests is only practised in Greece and Turkey. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 15 October 2003, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture invited experts to a workshop in order to discuss the recent outbreak of pine tree desiccation particularly affecting the region of Attica. They concluded that there is no direct cause/effect relationship between the presence of Marchalina hellenica and desiccation of trees of the genus Pinus but that the desiccation is a secondary damage brought about by i.a. climatic factors. To the Commission's knowledge, the deliberate spreading of M. hellenica in pine forests is only practised in Greece and Turkey.

| 2. | The workshop on 15 October 2003 concluded that further research into the desiccation problem and the behaviour of M. hellenica in pine forests is necessary. As the problem does not have an EU-wide dimension, the Commission has no plans to fund further research into it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The workshop on 15 October 2003 concluded that further research into the desiccation problem and the behaviour of M. hellenica in pine forests is necessary. As the problem does not have an EU-wide dimension, the Commission has no plans to fund further research into it.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/522 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/522

---

(2004/C 84 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4079/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Bird trapping on Cyprus

Birdlife International alleges that illegal bird trapping on Cyprus, using both mist nets and lime sticks, has increased by 100 % over the past year, despite Government assurances to the contrary.

Will the Commission state whether the trapping of migratory birds in these ways will be contrary to EU law after the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004?

If so, has the Commission indicated to the Government of Cyprus that infringement proceedings may commence rapidly if the situation continues after the date of accession?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

As an acceding country, Cyprus will be required to fully implement and enforce the Birds Directive (1) on 1 May 2004. No transition period has been given and no specific derogations have been requested by Cyprus. In October 2003 Cyprus adopted national legislation to transpose the requirements of both the Birds and Habitats Directives (2).

More specifically, the Commission clearly pointed out during the negotiation for accession that certain bird-trapping methods, like the ones involving the use of mist nets and lime sticks, are incompatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive. The practice is illegal in Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities have assured the Commission that they would step up efforts for effective enforcement of the law in question.

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and the progress made by Cyprus in working towards meeting its obligations under Community law, not just in transposition but also in implementation and enforcement. Should problems be observed, then the Commission will raise them with the national authorities to seek their resolution. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to take all the appropriate measures, in order to guarantee the correct application of Community environmental law by its Member States.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/522 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/522

---

(2004/C 84 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State

Since questions P-3279/03 (1) and E-3280/03 (1) incorrectly stated the value of exports to the Vatican City State — because it was not specified at the end of the extracts from the CATS database (answer to question P-3202/02) (2) that the figures represent the general total — the questioner acknowledges that the correct amount of export refunds for the period 1998-2001 is EUR 4 000 813,01.

The answer to question P-3279/03 confirms the figures given in point (d) and hence, since the correct total of payments is EUR 321 711 242,39, the proportion of payments made in cases where the product and/or the unit of measurement is not indicated is 30,26 % of the total, rather than 15,13 %.

In reply to question E-3280/03 the Commission said that it did not consider the questions relevant, in view of the error made in stating the amount of refunds for exports to the Vatican City State, and stressed the following:

| 1. | in point (c) or the supplementary answer to questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (3) it is stated that:






  — | There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of exports to this country appears reasonable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

in point (c) or the supplementary answer to questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (3) it is stated that:

—

There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of exports to this country appears reasonable.

| — | In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See.

| — | As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds ... apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds ... apply.

| 2. | in point (d) it is stated that Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty, which governs the relations between the Vatican City State and the Italian Republic guarantees the central bodies of the Catholic Church exemption from ‘any interference on the part of the Italian State’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

in point (d) it is stated that Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty, which governs the relations between the Vatican City State and the Italian Republic guarantees the central bodies of the Catholic Church exemption from ‘any interference on the part of the Italian State’.

Can the Commission therefore say, as it was originally asked in question E-3280/03:

| — | why no specific checks are conducted on the quantities of beef, cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State? |
| --- | --- |

—

why no specific checks are conducted on the quantities of beef, cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State?

| — | whether it has a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican to which the goods are exported? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican to which the goods are exported?

| — | whether any infringement of the Community rules on export refunds should be exempt from interference on the part of the Italian State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether any infringement of the Community rules on export refunds should be exempt from interference on the part of the Italian State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty?

| — | which assessments provide the basis for its statement that the quantity of exports to the Vatican appears reasonable? |
| --- | --- |

—

which assessments provide the basis for its statement that the quantity of exports to the Vatican appears reasonable?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-3279/03.

The Commission points out that the figures given in the answer to Written Question P-3279/03 were not confirmed (4) as indicated by the Honourable Member in this written question. The correct total of payments for the period 1998-2001 for various destinations including the Vatican State City (VA) is EUR 321 711 242,39.

For the amount of EUR 9 066 774,47 (instead of EUR 9 067 116,01 as stated by the Honourable Member) the CATS database does not contain an indication of the product and of the unit of measurement.

For the amount of EUR 23 236 120 ,85 (instead of EUR 14 173 353,56) the CATS database does not contain the product code.

For the amount of EUR 83 188 136,82 (instead of EUR 74 115 436,13) the CATS database does not contain the unit of measurement.

However, it must be made clear that no payments are made on the basis of the CATS database. These are made by the national paying agencies respecting the provisions of Commission Regulation (CE) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (5).

The calculated percentage of 30,26 % of missing information in the CATS database is an average for the whole period (1998-2001). Due to substantial improved quality controls, the calculated proportion of data fields with missing information went down from 62,63 % for financial year 1998 to 6,77 % for financial year 2001 (6).

The Commission wants to stress, that the CATS database has been established and designed as a control tool, and that no payments are made on the basis of the data contained therein.

The Commission would like to draw attention to an obvious translation mistake. In the joint answer to the Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 it should read ‘beet’ and not ‘beef’ as it has been erroneously published only in the Italian version of the answer.

In light of the above:

| — | The exports of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form from Member States to the Vatican City with export refunds to the Vatican City are according to Council Regulation (EC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (7) subject of a mandatory physical control of at least 5 %. No specific problem was brought to the attention of the Commission that would have lead to requesting a change with regard to specific checks on the exports from Member States to the Vatican City. If the Honourable Member is in the possession of any evidence which would presume a non-regulatory situation, he is requested to transmit it to the Commission which will then assure the appropriate follow-up. |
| --- | --- |

—

The exports of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form from Member States to the Vatican City with export refunds to the Vatican City are according to Council Regulation (EC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (7) subject of a mandatory physical control of at least 5 %. No specific problem was brought to the attention of the Commission that would have lead to requesting a change with regard to specific checks on the exports from Member States to the Vatican City. If the Honourable Member is in the possession of any evidence which would presume a non-regulatory situation, he is requested to transmit it to the Commission which will then assure the appropriate follow-up.

| — | On a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican, the Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to what is said about these in the Lateran Treaty itself, which is to be found annexed to the Italian ratifying act, Law No 810 of 27 May 1929. |
| --- | --- |

—

On a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican, the Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to what is said about these in the Lateran Treaty itself, which is to be found annexed to the Italian ratifying act, Law No 810 of 27 May 1929.

| — | The Lateran Treaty was concluded between Italy and the Holy See in 1929. It is therefore covered by Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 between one or more Member States and one or more third countries. Relations between the Community and Italy are governed by the Community legislation in force. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Lateran Treaty was concluded between Italy and the Holy See in 1929. It is therefore covered by Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 between one or more Member States and one or more third countries. Relations between the Community and Italy are governed by the Community legislation in force.

| — | The Commission has based its assumption that the exports to the Vatican City appear reasonable on the findings of the European Court of Auditors. In this context reference is made to the Special Report of the European Customs Association (ECA) No 2/93 (8) where it is stated under point 6.22: The persons eligible to benefit from the customs exemptions of the Vatican State are the permanent residents of the City State itself (some 600 people) and the persons who reside permanently or temporarily in the other buildings (on average some 20 000 in any one year are there for study purposes, religion training, official reasons, etc.). In addition Italian citizens employed by, or pensioners of, the agencies of the Holy See and the governorship of the Vatican City State and their families have the right to use the Vatican shops. This is estimated to be about 12 000 persons.' It can be reasoned that these figures are still valid or possibly even higher. For such a factual population the quoted figures appear reasonable. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission has based its assumption that the exports to the Vatican City appear reasonable on the findings of the European Court of Auditors. In this context reference is made to the Special Report of the European Customs Association (ECA) No 2/93 (8) where it is stated under point 6.22: The persons eligible to benefit from the customs exemptions of the Vatican State are the permanent residents of the City State itself (some 600 people) and the persons who reside permanently or temporarily in the other buildings (on average some 20 000 in any one year are there for study purposes, religion training, official reasons, etc.). In addition Italian citizens employed by, or pensioners of, the agencies of the Holy See and the governorship of the Vatican City State and their families have the right to use the Vatican shops. This is estimated to be about 12 000 persons.' It can be reasoned that these figures are still valid or possibly even higher. For such a factual population the quoted figures appear reasonable.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(3)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(4)  Answer to P-3279/03, second paragraph: ‘In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can, therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable Member extracted these figures.’

(5)  OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.

(6)  1998 was the starting phase of the CATS database.

(7)  OJ L 42, 16.2.1990.

(8)  OJ C 347, 27.12.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/525 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/525

---

(2004/C 84 E/0600)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0011/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Tunis summit and immigration policy

The 5 + 5 Dialogue summit took place on 5 and 6 December 2003 in Tunis. According to the few reports that have appeared in the press, the main topic of discussion was strengthening cooperation in the Western Mediterranean, together, presumably, with the question of the migratory flows from North Africa to European countries, which are one of the most important factors in this cooperation. Since the 1999 Tampere summit, the European Union has been trying to devise a common migration policy. However, individual Member States are enacting legislation which differs substantially. Italy, for example, following an agreement with Tunisia, signed a bilateral agreement with Libya in July 2003 as many illegal boatloads of immigrants arrive from Libya.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What issues were on the agenda of the Tunis Summit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What issues were on the agenda of the Tunis Summit?

| 2. | Were any conclusions reached concerning the joint management of migratory flows to the Union in order to avoid a massive influx of illegal immigrants? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Were any conclusions reached concerning the joint management of migratory flows to the Union in order to avoid a massive influx of illegal immigrants?

| 3. | Did the summit consider proposals to step up security against terrorism for the Mediterranean countries and, at the same time, enhance economic development opportunities for the African countries bordering the Mediterranean? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did the summit consider proposals to step up security against terrorism for the Mediterranean countries and, at the same time, enhance economic development opportunities for the African countries bordering the Mediterranean?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | Since the 5 + 5 Dialogue Summit in Tunis was an informal meeting, there was no formal agenda as such. A number of discussion topics (which were reflected in the final declaration) were proposed:






  — | security and stability in the Mediterranean; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Since the 5 + 5 Dialogue Summit in Tunis was an informal meeting, there was no formal agenda as such. A number of discussion topics (which were reflected in the final declaration) were proposed:

—

security and stability in the Mediterranean;

| — | regional integration and economic cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

—

regional integration and economic cooperation;

| — | migration; |
| --- | --- |

—

migration;

| — | dialogue between cultures and civilisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

dialogue between cultures and civilisations;

| — | the new EU neighbourhood policy. |
| --- | --- |

—

the new EU neighbourhood policy.

| 2. | The final declaration of the first summit of Heads of State and Government endorsed the previous Tunis ministerial declaration on migration in the western Mediterranean of October 2002, which paved the way for a ‘balanced, integrated, and comprehensive dialogue between the countries of the Western Mediterranean to cooperate on migration issues of common interest in an organized and coordinated manner’.
  This confirmed the following points as fundamental elements of a Euro-Mediterranean policy which incorporated the work of the Valencia Conference (April 2002) viewed within the broader context of the Barcelona process:






  — | to adopt a comprehensive and balanced approach to migrations (measures to combat illegal immigration should be complemented by co-development, movement of persons and labour migration); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The final declaration of the first summit of Heads of State and Government endorsed the previous Tunis ministerial declaration on migration in the western Mediterranean of October 2002, which paved the way for a ‘balanced, integrated, and comprehensive dialogue between the countries of the Western Mediterranean to cooperate on migration issues of common interest in an organized and coordinated manner’.

This confirmed the following points as fundamental elements of a Euro-Mediterranean policy which incorporated the work of the Valencia Conference (April 2002) viewed within the broader context of the Barcelona process:

—

to adopt a comprehensive and balanced approach to migrations (measures to combat illegal immigration should be complemented by co-development, movement of persons and labour migration);

| — | to consolidate the integration of legal migrants by protecting their rights (family reunion, facilities for movement, equal treatment, etc.) while also spelling out their obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

to consolidate the integration of legal migrants by protecting their rights (family reunion, facilities for movement, equal treatment, etc.) while also spelling out their obligations;

| — | to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings by joint action and cooperation (including at operational level) while attempting to find a better way of addressing the real causes of those plagues. |
| --- | --- |

—

to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings by joint action and cooperation (including at operational level) while attempting to find a better way of addressing the real causes of those plagues.

A meeting of the ministerial conference responsible for migration issues will be held in Algiers during 2004.

| 3. | The Tunis Summit of 5/6 December 2003 gave a warm welcome to the new neighbourhood policy proposed by the EU. In a sense, this endorses the bilateral and regional policy already launched as part of specific projects (such as the ‘management of border controls’ programme with Morocco and the JHA regional programme) as well as the prospect enshrined in future action plans of implementing tailor-made migration strategies for individual countries. The Tunis Summit also calls for the western basin of the Mediterranean to be regarded, within the framework of that policy, as a strategic area and an area of peace, stability, solidarity, prosperity, freedom and justice based on respect for common values.
  In addition, the Member States involved in the 5 + 5 Dialogue reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. They proposed the adoption of regional plans to coordinate efforts and renewed their commitment to implementing conventions and recommendations, in particular UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Expressing an interest in a worldwide UN convention on terrorism and in an international conference on the subject, they reiterated their determination to step up cooperation on security and on economic, social and cultural development, particularly between the Arab Maghreb Union and the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Tunis Summit of 5/6 December 2003 gave a warm welcome to the new neighbourhood policy proposed by the EU. In a sense, this endorses the bilateral and regional policy already launched as part of specific projects (such as the ‘management of border controls’ programme with Morocco and the JHA regional programme) as well as the prospect enshrined in future action plans of implementing tailor-made migration strategies for individual countries. The Tunis Summit also calls for the western basin of the Mediterranean to be regarded, within the framework of that policy, as a strategic area and an area of peace, stability, solidarity, prosperity, freedom and justice based on respect for common values.

In addition, the Member States involved in the 5 + 5 Dialogue reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. They proposed the adoption of regional plans to coordinate efforts and renewed their commitment to implementing conventions and recommendations, in particular UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Expressing an interest in a worldwide UN convention on terrorism and in an international conference on the subject, they reiterated their determination to step up cooperation on security and on economic, social and cultural development, particularly between the Arab Maghreb Union and the European Union.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/526 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/526

---

(2004/C 84 E/0601)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0015/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Apple orchards

Can the Commission state whether any EU legislation has stipulated or resulted in the restriction of British apple growers from planting new orchards of English apples? In particular, Cox's apples.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Recipients of Community aid for grubbing up apple, pear, peach and nectarine trees for the 1990/1991 to 1992/1993, 1994/1995, 1995/1996 and 1997/1998 marketing years had to undertake ‘to refrain for a period of 15 years, first, from planting any apple trees (other than cider-apple trees), pear trees (other than perry-pear trees), peach trees and/or nectarine trees on the areas of [their] holding affected by the grubbing up operation and, second, from extending the other areas of [their] holding planted with apple trees (other than cider-apple trees), pear trees (other than perry-pear trees), peach trees and/or nectarine trees’ (1). This requirement, not aimed at any particular variety of dessert apple, was necessary in order to give the grubbing up operations the full economic effect desired and avoid wasting Community funds.

---

(1)  See Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2467/97 of 11 December 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 on the improvement of the Community production of apples, pears, peaches and nectarines, OJ L 341, 12.12.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/527 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/527

---

(2004/C 84 E/0602)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0022/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Support for the Po Valley dairy farmers' campaign

Does the European Commission not consider that the current milk quota scheme, is particularly hard on dairy producers in the Po valley as Italy is the only one of the Member States where consumption is much higher than production quotas?

Is the European Commission aware that this anomaly has had serious repercussions on farmers in the Po Valley who are even now still being forced to leave their farms to take part in demonstrations or man roadblocks in Milan and Rome to demand that the Italian Government safeguard the rights of Po Valley dairy production at European level?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Milk quotas were introduced by the Council in 1984 to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand in the milk sector. The production quotas were allocated on the basis not of consumption per geographical area but of the output of each individual producer over a specified period. That was the only way of avoiding discrimination between producers.

Since introduction of the quota scheme the reference quantities allocated to Italy have been increased considerably, by 19,6 % over the period 1984 to 2004, whereas in most of the other Member States quotas have been either stabilised or reduced.

We consider that the milk quota scheme holds out the prospect of stable production and income security to farmers without impeding restructuring of milk production in the Union, and take the view that full and correct application is a guarantee of its being comprehensively effective.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/527 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/527

---

(2004/C 84 E/0603)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition by the introduction of regional premiums

Chapter 5 of the new Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) concerning direct support schemes gives Member States the option of introducing regional premiums. Denmark and Germany are reported to be about to introduce such an arrangement.

| 1. | What premium per hectare will be paid in regions where this arrangement is introduced? Can the Commission provide its own overview of payments by land-area on the basis of comparable (temporary) arrangements in the new Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What premium per hectare will be paid in regions where this arrangement is introduced? Can the Commission provide its own overview of payments by land-area on the basis of comparable (temporary) arrangements in the new Member States?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that the option, under this arrangement, of using subsidised land to grow crops that are not covered by the rules for direct support schemes will damage fair competition and return European agricultural policy to national control? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that the option, under this arrangement, of using subsidised land to grow crops that are not covered by the rules for direct support schemes will damage fair competition and return European agricultural policy to national control?

| 3. | In Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 restrictions are imposed on growing vegetables, fruit and potatoes in such regions. How does the Commission intend to monitor the production of crops growers are normally free to produce? What reductions and fines will be imposed on producers and regions if these de facto quotas are exceeded? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 restrictions are imposed on growing vegetables, fruit and potatoes in such regions. How does the Commission intend to monitor the production of crops growers are normally free to produce? What reductions and fines will be imposed on producers and regions if these de facto quotas are exceeded?

| 4. | What action will the Commission take to guarantee fair competition for other market-gardening products and for other agricultural products that are not covered by the direct support scheme? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What action will the Commission take to guarantee fair competition for other market-gardening products and for other agricultural products that are not covered by the direct support scheme?

| 5. | Having regard to the foregoing, how can the Commission reconcile these regional premiums with the principle of a single European agricultural policy, as laid down in the Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Having regard to the foregoing, how can the Commission reconcile these regional premiums with the principle of a single European agricultural policy, as laid down in the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

| 1. | In accordance with Article 58(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, the Member States may decide to apply the single payment scheme (SPS) at a regional level until 1 August of the year preceding the first year of application of the SPS. At the present stage, the Commission does not know exactly under what conditions the Member States will apply the single payment scheme on a regional level.
  Nor can the Commission indicate the expected per hectare premiums for the new Member States at the present stage. The transitional Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) payments are defined as the total budget for direct payments in a year divided by the eligible area. Neither the national envelopes nor the eligible areas under SAPS have been established yet. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In accordance with Article 58(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, the Member States may decide to apply the single payment scheme (SPS) at a regional level until 1 August of the year preceding the first year of application of the SPS. At the present stage, the Commission does not know exactly under what conditions the Member States will apply the single payment scheme on a regional level.

Nor can the Commission indicate the expected per hectare premiums for the new Member States at the present stage. The transitional Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) payments are defined as the total budget for direct payments in a year divided by the eligible area. Neither the national envelopes nor the eligible areas under SAPS have been established yet.

| 2. | The Commission does not think that decoupled support will lead to unfair competition in the agriculture sector or that such support would lead to a re-nationalisation of the agricultural policy. Instead, the decoupling of support will encourage farmers to produce crops or products that are best suited to the (local) conditions and for which they have the best market opportunities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not think that decoupled support will lead to unfair competition in the agriculture sector or that such support would lead to a re-nationalisation of the agricultural policy. Instead, the decoupling of support will encourage farmers to produce crops or products that are best suited to the (local) conditions and for which they have the best market opportunities.

| 3. | The control of the respect of the limits set in Article 60 of the above-mentioned Council Regulation will be similar to existing control procedures for coupled direct payments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The control of the respect of the limits set in Article 60 of the above-mentioned Council Regulation will be similar to existing control procedures for coupled direct payments.

| 4. | Most horticultural production is characterised by a high value output per hectare. Even under the regionally applied single payment scheme direct support for horticulture will be relatively low. Therefore, the Commission does not expect significant competitive effects. However, if necessary, the Commission will make appropriate proposals to remedy any disturbance of the markets in accordance with Article 60(8) of the above Council Regulation.
  The reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) creates a common framework to support the agricultural sector in all its diversity across Europe. To that end, the necessary flexibility has been left to the Member States in the application of this common framework in specific local circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Most horticultural production is characterised by a high value output per hectare. Even under the regionally applied single payment scheme direct support for horticulture will be relatively low. Therefore, the Commission does not expect significant competitive effects. However, if necessary, the Commission will make appropriate proposals to remedy any disturbance of the markets in accordance with Article 60(8) of the above Council Regulation.

The reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) creates a common framework to support the agricultural sector in all its diversity across Europe. To that end, the necessary flexibility has been left to the Member States in the application of this common framework in specific local circumstances.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/529

---

(2004/C 84 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0048/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Location of the European fisheries monitoring agency in Galicia

At the most recent Council meeting held in Brussels under the Italian presidency in the context of the decisions on the location of various agencies, it was agreed to create a European fisheries monitoring agency to be located in the Spanish state.

Has it already been agreed to locate this agency in Vigo, as has been suggested in Galician government and media circles?

Given that, according to some reports, the agency will not begin operations until 2005, what are the current forecasts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

We welcome the decision of the Member States' representatives, when they met at Head of State and Government level at Brussels on 13 December, that a European Fisheries Control Agency will be set up and located in Spain.

It appears that the Spanish Government wishes the agency to be located at Vigo in Galicia but we have no official confirmation of this choice.

In March we shall be sending the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation establishing the Agency.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/529

---

(2004/C 84 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0056/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Mr Prodi's statement on the need for each Member State or group of Member States to take the initiative and move forward on the basis of reinforced cooperation if the draft constitution is not adopted in the near future

Given that reinforced cooperation does not have the effect of strengthening the Union's democratic elements, since it marginalises the common institutions, while the EU needs to define the adoption of the Constitution as proposed by the Convention as an overriding objective, can the Commission explain the significance of President Prodi's recent statement to ‘La Repubblica’ in which he apparently assumes that the Intergovernmental Conference has failed and calls for initiatives for further progress on the basis of reinforced cooperation to be put forward by a Member State or group of Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission hopes that the work of the Intergovernmental Conference on the draft Constitution can be concluded as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of 2004. Mr Prodi has warned the general public that, if work on the Constitution ends in failure, there is a risk that a group of Member States will wish to proceed with European integration outside the framework of the present Treaties.

It should be borne in mind that the instrument of reinforced cooperation as provided for in the Treaties by no means marginalises the European institutions; on the contrary, reinforced cooperation specifically relies on recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms provided for in the Treaties. Closer collaboration between certain Member States outside the Treaties clearly could not provide the same guarantees.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/530 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/530

---

(2004/C 84 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Animal welfare and subsidies following the reform of the CAP

When the reform of the CAP enters into force, subsidies for cattle farmers will be specifically linked to compliance with EU basic requirements in terms of animal health and welfare. Farmers who fail to observe these requirements will be subject to cuts in direct payments, as well as the sanctions generally applicable.

How will farms be assessed for animal welfare?

How does the animal welfare factor tie in with subsidies for breeders of fighting bulls, who earn their living by repeatedly hiring out their animals for bullfights, during which they are left to face hours of torture, including being injured with lances, having their horns set on fire and being hunted into the sea? Does the Commission intend to reduce these farms' subsidies on a permanent basis, since it is clear that their very nature means that they cannot meet the minimum animal welfare requirements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In the Commission's declaration which accompanied the agreement on the Council Regulation on the reform of the CAP (Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1)) it is foreseen that the control of the farmers in respect of their cross-compliance obligations will normally be the responsibility of the official services which currently monitor compliance with the relevant animal welfare rules.

The agency responsible for the payment of aid will apply sanctions on the basis of these controls.

The Commission is currently drafting the necessary detailed rules on this subject, in accordance with the above-mentioned declaration.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, which was adopted in September 2003, following the Parliament's opinion, provides that direct payments are subject to cross-compliance, as from 1 January 2007, as regards animal welfare and in particular as regards Council Directive 98/58/CE of 20 July 1998 on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2). However, bull fighting animals are not covered by this Directive according to Article 1 (2)b thereof, which excludes ‘animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities’. Moreover, Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides that any reduction or exclusion from payments ‘shall only apply if the non-compliance relates to a) an agricultural activity, b) an agricultural land of the holding ...’ Therefore, the treatment received by these animals in the bull ring is entirely outside the scope of both those Regulations.

Furthermore, the Commission is not aware that the welfare of potential fighting bulls, whilst they are being reared on the farm is, in practice, inferior to that of animals reared for other purposes.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(2)  OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/531 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/531

---

(2004/C 84 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Flight Times and Duty Limitations Proposal — COM(2002)0030.

Could the Commission outline the Council's reaction to its current proposal (1) to update Council Regulation 3922/91/EEC (2)? When does it envisage agreement on this proposal within Council? Does it intend revising its proposal and if so, how?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Council has been unable to adopt the proposal, essentially because it is linked to a proposal for a directive on the recognition of cabin crew qualifications. For that reason, and despite the Commission's efforts to overcome this position, which was expressed in December 2001, the dossier has remained frozen. In a bid to resume work on the dossier, and taking account of the amendment Parliament adopted in September 2002 on the limitation of flight time, which the Council did not wish to take into consideration, the Commission will in the next few days be putting forward a revised proposal incorporating Parliament's amendment.

---

(1)  COM(2002)0030, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/531 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/531

---

(2004/C 84 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0094/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Reform of the COM in tobacco

On 18 November 2003 the Commission adopted a series of legislative proposals aimed at reforming the COM in tobacco. The proposals entail dismantling the current COM and gradually eliminating any kind of aid to tobacco production in Europe.

Since the elimination of aid will herald the end of tobacco production in Europe and thus the processing industry will have no option but to obtain supplies from abroad, can the Commission say whether it considers that:

| — | the socio-economic problems caused in some areas of the European Union by the progressive abandonment of this crop will be counterbalanced by tangible benefits in terms of combating smoking; |
| --- | --- |

—

the socio-economic problems caused in some areas of the European Union by the progressive abandonment of this crop will be counterbalanced by tangible benefits in terms of combating smoking;

| — | it is illogical to eliminate tobacco production in Europe whilst failing to make provision for any form of protection for imports of tobacco from abroad; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is illogical to eliminate tobacco production in Europe whilst failing to make provision for any form of protection for imports of tobacco from abroad;

| — | there is any point in eliminating tobacco production in Europe when the consumption of the product continues to be lawful and there is strong demand on the market? |
| --- | --- |

—

there is any point in eliminating tobacco production in Europe when the consumption of the product continues to be lawful and there is strong demand on the market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The proposal for a reform of the raw tobacco sector does not have as its aim to eliminate production of tobacco in the Union as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The aim of the reform is to replace the product specific support to raw tobacco by an income support to producers as was the case for all the products in the June 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. The majority of the raw tobacco producers will continue to receive the same support as they received in the reference period without being bound to produce tobacco, but it will still be legal to produce tobacco if the producers want to do so.

The global budget for the tobacco sector will remain the same, and the part which is not paid to the producers as coupled or decoupled payments will be transferred to a financial envelope which will be used in the Member States where the funds contributing to the envelope are collected. The funds in the envelope will be administered according to the rural development legislation and will, through contributing to improvements on the infrastructure in the tobacco producing regions and by supporting producers who want to shift to other products or to other economic activities, tackle possible socioeconomic problems in the tobacco growing regions.

As the Commission is not banning tobacco production, import of such products will still be legal and the Commission is not taking any actions against such imports.

On the question of combating smoking, it can be said that, while the replacement of product related subsidies may not directly influence the short term prevalence of smoking, as was the finding of the Commission Extended Impact Assessment report, it is clear that better coherence with public health policies is essential to maintain the confidence and trust of EU citizens, and the Commission will continue its campaigns on improving the public awareness of the harmful effects of all forms of tobacco consumption.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/532 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/532

---

(2004/C 84 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0099/04

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Mario Borghezio (NI), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Luisa Morganiini (GUE/NGL), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Giovanni Fava (PSE), Marco Pannella (NI), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Mariotto Segni (UEN), Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE), Walter Veltroni (PSE), Giorgio Ruffolo (PSE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Paolo Pastorelli (PPE-DE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR), Claudio Martelli (ELDR), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Burma

According to press reports, the ruling military junta in Burma (now called Myanmar), which is headed by General Khin Nyunt, has sentenced to death Zaw Thet Htway, aged 37, the editor of the sports magazine First Eleven.

Zaw Thet Htway is alleged to have conspired, along with colleagues, to assassinate the leaders who are oppressing that country through their dictatorial regime. No official warrant was issued for the journalists' arrest and their trial was conducted without the assistance of any lawyers not subject to pressure or external influence and without international observers, who could have guaranteed if not a fair trial then at least one that reflected the fundamental principles of justice. Zaw Thet Htway and the eight other defendants were sentenced to death and confined to a special prison.

All these people have done is to voice a critical opinion of the regime led by General Khin Nyunt by denouncing the misdeeds, abuses and harassment which the people of Burma have been suffering for too long now. The members of this dictatorship have, in fact, over the years, spirited away international donations to the value of several million dollars which were actually intended for the world of sport, to construct and renovate facilities, purchase sports equipment and clothing, and promote football throughout the country.

The military government, on the other hand, has gone so far as to appropriate funds earmarked for sport, without the merest fraction of the money received being allocated to the ends for which it was intended, in order to maintain the current system, which is corrupt, repressive and flies in the face of the most fundamental democratic principles.

In practice, a criticism and negative opinion of this corrupt system has been transformed into an ‘illegal’ conspiracy against the state, and therefore one punishable by death.

Will the Commission use the powers conferred upon it to intervene to ensure the suspension and revocation of this death sentence, thereby saving the lives of the nine accused, and to safeguard the most fundamental principles of civilisation and democracy that should be applied to all citizens of a democratic nation, in line with the dictates of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission remains deeply concerned about the death sentences issued on 28 November 2003 against Zaw Thet Htway and eight of his colleagues, as was expressed in the EU declaration of 31 December 2003 on the Death Penalty in Myanmar.

The Commission and the EU as a whole are committed to working towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. To this effect, specific EU guidelines on the death penalty were adopted in 1998. According to these guidelines, certain minimum standards should be respected in States that still apply the death penalty. One requirement is that procedural guarantees for a fair trial must be respected.

The Commission will continue, together with the Member States, to follow this case very closely in view of possible further action.

The political commitment of the Commission and the EU as a whole to the universal abolition of the death penalty is supported by Community funding under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The fight against the death penalty has been identified as one of the four priority areas of action for this initiative. This enables the Commission to fund projects that aim at raising awareness in retentionist countries as regards both public opinion and the judiciary.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/533 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/533

---

(2004/C 84 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Paying for water

In light of current Community legislation and the ‘polluter pays’ principle, does the Commission believe that water consumption should be paid for, whether totally or partly, in proportion to the amount consumed?

If so, can the Commission find a basis for this in the current legal framework?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Community has, through the Water Framework Directive (1), thoroughly restructured its water policy. One of the key elements of the Directive is the principle of supporting environmental objectives by economic instruments, in particular water pricing reflecting the costs.

By 2010, based on economic analysis and participation of citizens and stakeholders, Member States will have to ensure adequate pricing of water-related services, reflecting the principle of recovery of costs.

To this purpose, Member States have to ensure by that date:

| — | that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for the users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for the users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of the Directive;

| — | that an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, is made to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on an economic analysis due by the end of 2004 and taking into account the polluter pays principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

that an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, is made to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on an economic analysis due by the end of 2004 and taking into account the polluter pays principle.

Details of how to charge for water use are, within the above framework, the responsibility of Member States. In this context Member States will have some discretion to apply the principle of cost recovery, having regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions concerned. At the same time, the principle of cost recovery does not prevent the funding of particular measures such as preventive or remedial measures.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/534 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/534

---

(2004/C 84 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Water for human consumption

Can the Commission tell me whether direct or indirect references in European legislation to minimum pressure levels for water for private consumption are being respected?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

There are no criteria set out in Community environmental legislation for minimum pressure levels for water supplied by distribution systems.

The Drinking Water Directive (1) of 1998 establishes clear and binding criteria for the quality of drinking water from the tap provided to consumers of water supply systems.

---

(1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/535 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/535

---

(2004/C 84 E/0612)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0105/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Curious approach adopted by the Greek government to the stock exchange

Professor Prokopis Paulopoulos, the parliamentary spokesman of New Democracy publicly complained on 12 January 2004 that the Greek government was decriminalising two crimes relating to the operation of the stock exchange, notably share manipulation and the abuse of confidential information. These rules are being introduced as part of the new code for capital markets which has been presented to the Greek Parliament and provides for the two crimes in question to be decriminalised. Hitherto both share manipulation (Article 72 of Greek Law 1969/91) and the abuse of confidential information (Article 30 of Law 1806/88 and Presidential Decree 53/92, Articles 2 and 3) were criminal offences. It should be borne in mind that Greece has suffered the greatest loss of capital in Europe over the last few years with the collapse of the Athens Stock Exchange index. As a result 1,5 million Greeks have lost money amounting to an estimated EUR 100 billion.

Is the decriminalisation of share manipulation of shares and the abuse of confidential information compatible with Community law? Which other EU country has suffered a comparable loss of capital on the stock exchange? Which sanctions have been imposed and on whom in comparable circumstances in the other 14 Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

According to the Honourable Member's information, the Greek Government intends to decriminalise both market manipulation and insider dealing. These two infringements would no longer be considered as criminal offences if the new Greek code for capital markets were to be adopted by the Greek Parliament.

Regarding decriminalisation of market manipulation and insider dealing, Member States have currently to transpose Directive 2003/6/EC (1) (hereafter Market Abuse Directive) in order to have it implemented by 12 October 2004. As the transposition deadline is not reached, and as the Commission is not aware of any final transposition of this Directive by Greece yet, and the Commission therefore can not assess at this stage the legislative action of the Greek authorities.

However, Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Market Abuse Directive, makes mandatory for the Member States the principle of administrative measures or sanctions for such infringements. In addition, the last sentence of Article 14, paragraph 1 requires Member States to ensure that these measures are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

This paragraph foresees that the previous administrative measures and sanctions are without prejudice to the right of Member States to impose criminal sanctions. This means that the Member States may impose criminal offences in addition to administrative measures or sanctions. However, if the Member States decide not to have a criminal penalties regime, they should nonetheless maintain a mandatory regime of administrative measures or sanctions.

Regarding the criminal regime of prosecution for market abuse, the data show poor results. A study done by the predecessor of the Committee of European Securities Regulators — the Forum of European Securities Commissions — for the period of 1995-2000 regarding the market manipulation revealed that only thirteen criminal sanctions had been pronounced in the six year period in the whole European Economic Area (EEA). Regarding insider dealing, in Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom (and Switzerland) there were only nineteen criminal convictions in the same period.

Concerning the question on comparisons of loss of capital on stock exchanges, in terms of stock exchange price index declines and analysis of the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value of the index on the period, the Athens Stock Exchange General index registered a decline of 76 % between 1999 and 2003. In the same period, with the same method, the decline was 52 % in London FTSE 100, 72 % in Frankfurt Dax, 65 % in Paris CAC 40 and 56 % in Milano Mibtel for instance.

Finally, regarding the types and amounts of sanctions imposed for market abuse in Member States, figures for Greece are as follows: between 1997 and 2004, the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) substantiated 136 cases of insider dealing and market manipulation, and has imposed administrative fines of a total amount of EUR 52 million. Concerning penal sanctions, 31 from the HCMC's investigated market abuse cases were considered to be of penal character and have been referred to the Public Prosecutor through the filing of criminal complaints. In these cases more than 100 natural persons are involved.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation, OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/536 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/536

---

(2004/C 84 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0111/04

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject:   Dioxins in farm-raised salmon

According to a report published in the reputable ‘Science’ journal, significant quantities of carcinogenic substances, such as PCBs, have been found in farm-raised salmon. This has caused great concern among consumers and breeders.

Given the large quantities of salmon consumed, since it is one of the healthiest fish, being rich in omega-3 fatty acids, reducing the risk of heart disease, together with the fact that it is a major source of revenue in areas such as Scotland, can the Commission confirm the reports of contaminated fish and will it take immediate measures to eliminate the danger to consumers and safeguard the livelihood of fish-breeders?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a study published in the journal ‘Science’, which analysed 246 samples of farmed and wild salmon from all over the world for 14 organochlorine contaminants, including dioxins (sum of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)).

The substances, other than dioxins, mirex and PCBs are organochlorine pesticides or metabolites thereof, the use of which has been prohibited for a long time, with the exception of lindane which has been prohibited only since June 2002. Their presence in fish is due to the fact that residues of these pesticides are still present in the environment long after their prohibition, due to their very persistent nature.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001 of 29 November 2001 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (1) establishes maximum levels for dioxins in a range of foodstuffs including fish. The levels found in this study were all below the set maximum levels. The Commission is of the opinion that the levels of dioxins and PCBs found in this study are in line with those previously found and this study does not raise any new food safety issues. No immediate action from the Commission is therefore required but the long term strategy foresees a progressive reduction of the maximum levels.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/537 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/537

---

(2004/C 84 E/0614)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Repression of Lao-Hmong communities in the Saysomboune region (Laos)

According to international media reports, publicised by the Lao Human Rights Movement, the authorities of the Lao People's Democratic Republic conducted what can only be described as a siege of the ‘Saysomboune Special Zone’, with repeated and extremely violent attacks, in December. According to these sources, almost 3 000 people, mainly children, women and elderly people, died of hunger or as a result of the bombings by the Laotian artillery in recent weeks. This is yet another example of the fierce repression — bombings, bans on any contacts with the outside world, river poisoning, spraying of toxic substances on crops, etc. — inflicted on thousands of Laotians belonging to the Hmong ethnic group, who have lived or survived for the past 28 years in this enclave of the Xiengkhouang province. These are the communities on which journalists Thierry Falise, Vincent Reynaud and Karl Mua were reporting when they were arrested by the Laotian authorities and heavily sentenced following a sham trial.

Has the Commission reacted to this umpteenth case of terror being used by the Vientiane authorities against the Lao-Hmong people? Does it intend to inform the Vientiane authorities that the continuation of cooperation between the EU and Laos will be dependent on them stopping the campaign of extremely violent repression against the Lao-Hmong and on their willingness to facilitate access by UN representatives and international humanitarian organisations to the region? Lastly, does the Commission not consider that the steady deterioration in the human rights situation in Laos and the systematic violation of the principles on which the EU-PDRL Cooperation Agreement is based call for the immediate convening of the Cooperation Council, a meeting of which was initially due to take place in November 2003 but was called off ‘in the absence of sufficiently important issues for discussion’?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The Commission is aware that ethnic minority groups in Laos often face a difficult situation. Many of them live in the impoverished upland areas, particularly in the north of the country, and have limited access to social services such as education and health. Some groups, among them the Hmong, also frequently encounter mistrust from the administration even if there is no confirmed evidence of legal discrimination.

The Commission is also aware of reports of clashes between Laotian ‘security forces’ and some armed Hmong groups, in the Saysomboune Special Zone, as well as recent reports highlighting the difficult living conditions of these particular groups.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the 3rd Commission-Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) Joint Committee Meeting was held in Vientiane, Laos, on 7 January 2004. The slight delay in the holding of the Joint Committee was purely due to scheduling difficulties.

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that in addition to discussions on a variety of issues falling under the scope of the Cooperation Agreement, including governance and human rights, both Parties agreed to set up an Informal Working Group on ‘Cooperation in the areas of institution building and administrative reform, governance and Human Rights’. Meeting regularly, the working group will allow the EU and the Government of Lao PDR to demonstrate their commitment to implementing the Human Rights chapter of the Commission-Lao PDR Co-operation Agreement in a more proactive way.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/538 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/538

---

(2004/C 84 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0127/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject:   Community budget and the financial perspective

Given the major debate surrounding the post-2006 financial perspective, and also around cohesion policy in the wake of the submission of the Commission's proposals in these areas, will the Commission state:

| 1. | The value in euros of the total budget, of the total budget actually implemented, of the total budget written into the financial perspective and the maximum limits of the financial perspective from 1998 to 2004 in commitment spending and payments; and the same data, broken up according to the totals of the budgetary categories as entered in the financial perspective, |
| --- | --- |

1.

The value in euros of the total budget, of the total budget actually implemented, of the total budget written into the financial perspective and the maximum limits of the financial perspective from 1998 to 2004 in commitment spending and payments; and the same data, broken up according to the totals of the budgetary categories as entered in the financial perspective,

| 2. | the same data at constant prices, if possible, from 2000 or 2004, |
| --- | --- |

2.

the same data at constant prices, if possible, from 2000 or 2004,

| 3. | the relative weight of the budget (payment spending) in percentage of GDP and the maximum limit of own-resources from 1988 to 2004; and, if possible, the same data, stated in terms of gross national revenue? |
| --- | --- |

3.

the relative weight of the budget (payment spending) in percentage of GDP and the maximum limit of own-resources from 1988 to 2004; and, if possible, the same data, stated in terms of gross national revenue?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The figures requested by the Honourable Member are contained in the tables which have been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. They relate to the period 1988-2004.

Table 1: Economic and budgetary data

The time series set out in this table concern:

| 1. | Gross national product (GNP) of the Union in euro billion at current prices (EU-12 from 1988 to 1994 then EU-15 from 1995 to 2004).
  From 2003 the concept of gross national income (GNI) replaces that of GNP (the own resources ceiling was adjusted accordingly from 1,27 % to 1,24 %). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gross national product (GNP) of the Union in euro billion at current prices (EU-12 from 1988 to 1994 then EU-15 from 1995 to 2004).

From 2003 the concept of gross national income (GNI) replaces that of GNP (the own resources ceiling was adjusted accordingly from 1,27 % to 1,24 %).

| 2. | The own resources ceiling resulting from application of the percentage set each year in terms of GNP/GNI, at current prices and 2004 prices. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The own resources ceiling resulting from application of the percentage set each year in terms of GNP/GNI, at current prices and 2004 prices.

| 3. | The annual deflators used to convert GNP/GNI figures at current prices to figures at constant 2004 prices, using the most recent data and forecasts available. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The annual deflators used to convert GNP/GNI figures at current prices to figures at constant 2004 prices, using the most recent data and forecasts available.

| 4. | The annual ceilings set in the successive financial perspectives. These are the ceilings after the technical adjustments and revisions.
  To these are added any amounts for any given year resulting from the adjustments made during the period in connection with implementation. These amounts are shown separately. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The annual ceilings set in the successive financial perspectives. These are the ceilings after the technical adjustments and revisions.

To these are added any amounts for any given year resulting from the adjustments made during the period in connection with implementation. These amounts are shown separately.

| 5. | Any mobilisation from 2000 onwards, within the limits set for each mechanism of:






  — | the flexibility instrument; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Any mobilisation from 2000 onwards, within the limits set for each mechanism of:

—

the flexibility instrument;

| — | the Solidarity Fund. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Solidarity Fund.

| 6. | The budget figures for:






  — | the appropriations entered in the budget each year (initial budget and supplementary and amending budgets, including any appropriations corresponding to transfers resulting from adjustments in connection with implementation and mobilisation of the flexibility instrument or the Solidarity Fund) as voted by the budgetary authority; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The budget figures for:

—

the appropriations entered in the budget each year (initial budget and supplementary and amending budgets, including any appropriations corresponding to transfers resulting from adjustments in connection with implementation and mobilisation of the flexibility instrument or the Solidarity Fund) as voted by the budgetary authority;

| — | actual implementation of these appropriations for each budget year. |
| --- | --- |

—

actual implementation of these appropriations for each budget year.

The figures under points 4, 5 and 6 are shown:

| (a) | in appropriations for commitments and appropriations for payments (except for point 5, as the appropriations for payments were financed under the financial perspective ceiling); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

in appropriations for commitments and appropriations for payments (except for point 5, as the appropriations for payments were financed under the financial perspective ceiling);

| (b) | at current prices and constant 2004 prices. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

at current prices and constant 2004 prices.

Table 2: Budget figures as % of GNP/GNI

| (a) | Financial perspective ceilings, including adjustments in connection with implementation (total commitments and payments); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Financial perspective ceilings, including adjustments in connection with implementation (total commitments and payments);

| (b) | Total appropriations entered in the budget (total commitments and payments); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Total appropriations entered in the budget (total commitments and payments);

| (c) | Total appropriations used (total commitments and payments); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Total appropriations used (total commitments and payments);

| (d) | Own resources ceiling. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Own resources ceiling.

Table 3: Budget figures by financial perspective heading: Appropriations for commitments (ceilings, budget, implementation)

| (a) | Financial perspective 1988-1992 (implementation by heading not available); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Financial perspective 1988-1992 (implementation by heading not available);

| (b) | Financial perspective 1993-1999; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Financial perspective 1993-1999;

| (c) | Financial perspective 2000-2006. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Financial perspective 2000-2006.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/539 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/539

---

(2004/C 84 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0129/04

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Invasive alien species

Under the Gothenburg Commitment the European Commission has an obligation to produce a policy on invasive alien species. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme states that invasive alien species are a high priority. When will the Commission produce its policy on invasive alien species?

In particular what action is the European Commission taking to deal with the grey squirrel, which has been identified by the IUCN as one of the 100 worst alien invasive species and is now prevalent not only in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland but also in Italy, where the principal colony is spreading into the foothills of the Alps?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission recognises the importance of the threat posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to biodiversity, and regards addressing this threat as one of the key priorities in meeting the Gothenburg commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The Commission notes with alarm the continuing loss of biodiversity, and believes that achieving the 2010 target will require substantially reinforced action. The Commission is currently engaged in a broad consultative process to review progress in the implementation of the Community biodiversity strategy and action plans, with the dual aim of identifying priority measures and building momentum towards the 2010 target. As part of this process, the Irish Presidency will convene a Conference on Biodiversity and the EU in Malahide, Ireland, 25 to 27 May 2004. This Conference will aim to produce an outline ‘2010 delivery plan’ which identifies priority measures, targets, indicators and lead actors as well as the resources required. Without prejudice to the outcome of the review, it is anticipated that the 2010 Delivery Plan will reconfirm IAS as a priority. The Commission recognises that IAS is a complex issue which touches on many economic sectors and requires a comprehensive policy response. Unfortunately, existing resources do not permit such a response. The Commission trusts that the current momentum-building exercise will result in the allocation of adequate resources to address all key measures required to meet the 2010 target, IAS included. In the meantime, the Commission is aware of and welcomes the work done by the Council of Europe to develop a pan-European strategy for IAS; this is a useful point of reference for the development of EU policy.

Regarding the grey squirrel, Member States have an obligation to maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of European conservation interest; if and where the grey squirrel threatens this status, Member States are obliged to act accordingly. It is also relevant to note that a study is currently being completed under the LIFE-Nature programme on lessons learnt in LIFE-Nature projects which address IAS.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/540 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/540

---

(2004/C 84 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Fluoridation of drinking water

On 25 December 2003 the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)), which permits Member States to add fluoride to drinking water, came into force. The benefits and risks of water fluoridation are far from well established, and scientific controversy and health concerns have loomed over the issue for many years.

The York Review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water, commissioned by the British Department of Health in 1999, could not accurately determine the effect of fluoridating water on teeth, because the evidence was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since then there has been, according to the authors of this review, no other scientifically defensible review to alter its findings.

In light of this and of the fact that in the UK and Ireland some nine million consumers have fluoride added to their drinking water without their consent, what research is the Commission promoting and funding into the safety of water fluoridation? Does the Commission agree that such research is an essential step in enabling Member States to follow the precautionary principle and to prohibit this form of mass-medication, if they so choose?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility and the Commission is not involved as long as the maximum limit set out in Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption is respected. Fluoridation, like other water treatment processes, is an issue that should be addressed by the national authorities.

The policy that individual Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors and takes into account local customs and habits as well as the fact that ingestion of fluoridated compounds may also result from the use of fluoridated toothpastes, fluoride rinses, fluoride treatments in dental offices, food and beverages. At present, the Commission is not promoting nor funding specific research into the safety of water fluoridation.

---

(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/541 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/541

---

(2004/C 84 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Collection of biometric data at ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ airport, their processing by an external partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data

The Greek airport of ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ is taking part in a pilot programme to collect biometric data from airline passengers. The programme is funded by the European Union and the other participants are the International Air Transport Association, Milan airport and Alitalia. In a recent decision, the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data ruled that the collection and processing of biometrie data was illegal, even on a voluntary basis, and prohibited the continuation of the programme.

| 1. | Is it possible for the European Union to fund such programmes without the prior approval of the data protection authorities in the countries concerned, in this case Greece and Italy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible for the European Union to fund such programmes without the prior approval of the data protection authorities in the countries concerned, in this case Greece and Italy?

| 2. | Does the Commission intend to withdraw financial and political support for such programmes immediately since the decision by the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data has created a new legal framework for EU decisions on checking the identity of European citizens by means of biometrie data? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission intend to withdraw financial and political support for such programmes immediately since the decision by the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data has created a new legal framework for EU decisions on checking the identity of European citizens by means of biometrie data?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

| 1. | The Honourable Member makes an implicit reference to the s-Travel project (ref: IST-2001-3825). It must be remembered that Community funded projects must work within the existing legal framework at the EU and Member State levels.
  The main objective of this project was to strengthen airline passenger security by early adoption of biometrie technologies in the airport boarding process.
  One task of the project was to design and to implement the security measures to be set up in pilot activities in the Eleftherios Venizelos Airport and in Milan Airport. These security measures were in conformity with the ones identified in the light of the working paper (1) adopted on 1 August 2003 by the Working Party described hereafter (see: question 2.). The purpose of that document was to provide general guidelines relating to the processing of biometrie data and to contribute to a common understanding of the different issues.
  Another task was to run biometrie enrolment and checking kiosks. Authorisations to run these kiosks were requested in July 2003 before the start of this task. The Greek authority gave a negative answer in October 2003. Decision was taken to terminate the project in conformance with the Commission procedures and to not fund this final trial phase.
  It should be noted that experiments (not funded under Community programmes) of the same type have been launched and pursued without objections from the relevant authorities in other airports of the European Union, for example Aéroport de Paris (France), Schiphol (the Netherlands), London City Airport (United Kingdom). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member makes an implicit reference to the s-Travel project (ref: IST-2001-3825). It must be remembered that Community funded projects must work within the existing legal framework at the EU and Member State levels.

The main objective of this project was to strengthen airline passenger security by early adoption of biometrie technologies in the airport boarding process.

One task of the project was to design and to implement the security measures to be set up in pilot activities in the Eleftherios Venizelos Airport and in Milan Airport. These security measures were in conformity with the ones identified in the light of the working paper (1) adopted on 1 August 2003 by the Working Party described hereafter (see: question 2.). The purpose of that document was to provide general guidelines relating to the processing of biometrie data and to contribute to a common understanding of the different issues.

Another task was to run biometrie enrolment and checking kiosks. Authorisations to run these kiosks were requested in July 2003 before the start of this task. The Greek authority gave a negative answer in October 2003. Decision was taken to terminate the project in conformance with the Commission procedures and to not fund this final trial phase.

It should be noted that experiments (not funded under Community programmes) of the same type have been launched and pursued without objections from the relevant authorities in other airports of the European Union, for example Aéroport de Paris (France), Schiphol (the Netherlands), London City Airport (United Kingdom).

| 2. | The decision of the Greek authority concerns only the specifics of the s-Travel project. This decision does not have an impact on other research on the use of biometric technologies.
  Since biometric data are personal data, any such research must take place in conformity with the data protection legal requirements, in particular Directive 95/46/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2). Article 29 of that Directive created a Working Party (WP) in this area. It is an independent EU advisory body composed of national supervisory authorities. The Working Party has concluded that further work is necessary, especially in the context of travel security, and that in the meantime the responsibility remains with the industry to develop biometrie systems that are data protection compliant.
  Furthermore, in the Conclusions of the Council of Thessaloniki, Members States have confirmed the need for a coherent approach in the EU on biometrie identifiers and on biometrics data for travel documents, and invited the Commission to prepare proposals (currently underway). In this context, research projects, carried out in full conformity with the legal framework, can contribute useful information and data.
  The Commission will continue to work with Member States on biometrie issues as these technologies have a tremendous potential in increasing the security of European citizens. This will be done in close cooperation with the Data Protection Authorities of Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The decision of the Greek authority concerns only the specifics of the s-Travel project. This decision does not have an impact on other research on the use of biometric technologies.

Since biometric data are personal data, any such research must take place in conformity with the data protection legal requirements, in particular Directive 95/46/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2). Article 29 of that Directive created a Working Party (WP) in this area. It is an independent EU advisory body composed of national supervisory authorities. The Working Party has concluded that further work is necessary, especially in the context of travel security, and that in the meantime the responsibility remains with the industry to develop biometrie systems that are data protection compliant.

Furthermore, in the Conclusions of the Council of Thessaloniki, Members States have confirmed the need for a coherent approach in the EU on biometrie identifiers and on biometrics data for travel documents, and invited the Commission to prepare proposals (currently underway). In this context, research projects, carried out in full conformity with the legal framework, can contribute useful information and data.

The Commission will continue to work with Member States on biometrie issues as these technologies have a tremendous potential in increasing the security of European citizens. This will be done in close cooperation with the Data Protection Authorities of Member States.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp80_en.pdf

(2)  OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/542 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/542

---

(2004/C 84 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal

Given the provisions contained in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with regard to religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity, and Article 6(1) and (2) of the TEU, and the fact that the International Report on Religious Freedom drawn up annually by the US State Department contains the following details in its 2003 edition:

| — | The 1984 Concordat between the Italian Government and the Catholic Church grants the latter privileges including the selection of state-paid teachers who provide religious instruction in public schools, which other confessions do not enjoy; |
| --- | --- |

—

The 1984 Concordat between the Italian Government and the Catholic Church grants the latter privileges including the selection of state-paid teachers who provide religious instruction in public schools, which other confessions do not enjoy;

| — | The Catholic faith is not a state religion, [but] its role as a dominant religion gives rise to problems', one area of conflict being that when certain Italian Catholic politicians joined the Pope in demanding that the European Constitution include an explicit recognition of Europe's Christian heritage; in January 2002 the Pope called on Italian lawyers to boycott divorce cases, and in June 2002, the Italian Parliament adopted legislation, with Vatican approval, banning the use of donated sperm for artificial insemination purposes; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Catholic faith is not a state religion, [but] its role as a dominant religion gives rise to problems', one area of conflict being that when certain Italian Catholic politicians joined the Pope in demanding that the European Constitution include an explicit recognition of Europe's Christian heritage; in January 2002 the Pope called on Italian lawyers to boycott divorce cases, and in June 2002, the Italian Parliament adopted legislation, with Vatican approval, banning the use of donated sperm for artificial insemination purposes;

| — | The Spanish Government provides little assistance to Protestant and Muslim leaders for public and religious education; likewise, there have been cases in which certain officials have refused permission to Muslim spiritual leaders to provide religious services in prisons, although this is habitually granted to Catholic clergy; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Spanish Government provides little assistance to Protestant and Muslim leaders for public and religious education; likewise, there have been cases in which certain officials have refused permission to Muslim spiritual leaders to provide religious services in prisons, although this is habitually granted to Catholic clergy;

| — | In Portugal, the Church of Scientology cannot appeal to the Law on Religious Freedom of 2001, because that law demands that any church must have been established in Portugal for 30 years, and have been internationally recognised for 60 years. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Portugal, the Church of Scientology cannot appeal to the Law on Religious Freedom of 2001, because that law demands that any church must have been established in Portugal for 30 years, and have been internationally recognised for 60 years.

Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above,

| — | and, if it has considered and assessed them, what conclusions has it reached? |
| --- | --- |

—

and, if it has considered and assessed them, what conclusions has it reached?

| — | does the Commission believe that the facts set out are incompatible with the TEU, particularly as regards the respect of fundamental rights demanded by Article 6? |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission believe that the facts set out are incompatible with the TEU, particularly as regards the respect of fundamental rights demanded by Article 6?

| — | does the Commission believe that the Concordat between Italy and the Holy See is incompatible with Article 307 of the TEC, given that Italy has not taken ‘all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities’? |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission believe that the Concordat between Italy and the Holy See is incompatible with Article 307 of the TEC, given that Italy has not taken ‘all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities’?

| — | finally, does the Commission not believe that the instances denounced in the US report violate the rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? |
| --- | --- |

—

finally, does the Commission not believe that the instances denounced in the US report violate the rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

As suggested in the report referred to by the Honourable Member, the laws of Member States may, under certain circumstances, attribute a particular status to certain churches. To the extent of the knowledge of the Commission this does not constitute an infringement of either national or of EU law. The Commission draws moreover the attention of the Honourable Member to declaration No 11 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam which states that ‘the EU respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States’. This provision has now been taken up by the article I-51 of the draft Constitution submitted by the European Convention to the present Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/543

---

(2004/C 84 E/0620)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0189/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Tunisian regime's repressive measures targeting human rights activists

According to various sources, since the beginning of January there has been an upsurge in acts of violence and intimidation against human rights activists by the Tunisian regime. On 3 January, Hammad Ali Bedoui, a member of the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia (CNLT) was placed under house arrest despite being in possession of a valid passport and Schengen visa. That same day, a huge deployment of police officers prevented the General Assembly of the International Association for the Support of Political Prisoners (AISPP) from taking place. On 5 January, Sihem Bensedrine, a journalist and member of the CNLT, was brutally attacked as she was returning to her home, which is also the headquarters of the CNLT. Since the beginning of the year, the building has been subject to heightened, 24-hour surveillance, which requires the constant presence of five plain-clothes police officers. Furthermore, according to the Yemeni Consul in Tunisia, the Tunisian authorities exerted extreme pressure on the Yemeni authorities not to grant visas to Mokhtar Trifi, the president of the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), Khedija Cherif the vice-president of the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) and Alya Cherif Chammari, a member of the board of Collectif 95 Maghreb Egalité and the Tunisian Centre for the Independence of the Judicial System, who had been invited to attend the Regional Intergovernmental Conference on Democracy, Human Rights and the Role of the International Criminal Court, held in Sanaa from 10 to 12 January 2004. The event was organised, under the aegis of the Presidency of the European Union, by the Yemeni Government and the NGO ‘No Peace Without Justice’ and sponsored by the Commission, the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Switzerland and the UNDP.

Is the Commission aware of the stepping-up of repressive measures against human rights activists by the Tunisian authorities? At the recent EU-Tunisia bilateral meeting at the end of September 2003, did the Commission remind the Tunisian delegation that the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement contains a human rights clause (Article 2) that stipulates that relations between the parties and the agreement in general are based on respect for human rights and the rule of law? Does the Commission not believe that the Tunisian authorities have now shown, with enough force and consistency and for a sufficient length of time, that they never had any intention of respecting the human rights clause, and does it not believe that it is up to the EU, therefore, to devise a range of retaliatory measures, which, it seems, would be the only way to persuade the Tunisian authorities to display a more constructive attitude?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The Tunisian human rights organisations referred to by the Honourable Member informed the Commission of the facts stated in his letter, via the international networks to which they belong.

With regard to the Regional Conference on Democracy and Human Rights held in Sana'a from 10 to 12 January 2004, the Commission remarked on the absence of Tunisian representatives of independent civil society.

In concert with the Member States, the Commission holds a regular dialogue with the Tunisian authorities on democracy and human rights.

For example, at the Fourth EU-Tunisia Association Council meeting on 30 September 2003, the EU reminded Tunisia of the importance it attaches to respect for the fundamental principles and common values underpinning the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement. The Member of the Commission responsible for external relations emphasised this, stressing that a more participatory society was essential to the country's harmonious development.

The Commission therefore proposed to Tunisia that the implementation of the Association Agreement and the European neighbourhood policy include a more structured and hence more effective dialogue on common values.

In addition, financial cooperation increasingly focuses on programmes relating to governance and the rule of law.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/544

---

(2004/C 84 E/0621)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0190/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Creating transparency regarding ownership of the company Italtrend (RE), beneficiary of consulting contracts from the European Commission worth millions of euro

The European Commission has, since 1999, awarded contracts worth EUR 15 million to a service company based in Reggio Emilia, Italtrend S.r.L., whose most important associate is Necway Trading Ltd, based in Dublin at 24 and 26 City Quay, near a tax and commercial consultants' firm, and which has as ‘director’ Paul Joseph Watson, a resident of Port Saint Mary on the Isle of Man.

Does not the Commission feel that it should seek to obtain a better idea of the true identity of the owners of Italtrend, a company in which Silvia Prodi, daughter of Quintiliano Prodi, who is the brother of the President of the Commission Romano Prodi, has an important official role (director's assistant)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to his Written Question E-3586/03 (1), where it explained that the total value of contracts signed with Italtrend between 1 September 1999 and 31 December 2003 is EUR 7,97 million, not EUR 15 million.

The selection criteria applied in every procurement procedure include the eligibility of the tenderer/candidate to take part in the procedure. The eligibility criteria already provide for an assessment for each candidate of its financial, economic, technical and professional capacity. These criteria are defined according to the legal basis concerned and are published in the procurement notice, in compliance with the relevant Commission Decisions (of 10 November 1999 (2), then of 25 March 2003 (3) Rules and Procedures for services, supplies and works contracts financed from the general budget of the EC in the context of cooperation with third countries), as well as with the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the Community general budget in the context of external actions’ (section 2.4.8.1).

The Financial Regulation, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and its Implementing Rules lay down rules on the documentary evidence that the contracting authority shall require from tenderers in order to ascertain that they are not in one of the situations of exclusion referred to in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation. Where considered necessary, the contracting authority may also ask for documentary evidence to be produced by natural persons, ‘including (...) company directors or any person with powers of representation, decision-making or control in relation to the candidate or tenderer’, depending upon national law. National law regarding the disclosure of the identity of shareholders however varies greatly from one Member State to the other. The second Directive on Company Law (5) only provides for disclosure of the identity of the founding members as well as of the persons managing the companies.

In addition, Article 52 of Financial Regulation states that: ‘All financial actors shall be prohibited from taking any measures of budgetary implementation which may bring their own interest into conflict with those of the Communities.’ Therefore, if a Commission official is involved in an award process covering an entity in which he holds an interest, he shall inform both the Appointing Authority (AIPN), according to Article 14 of the Staff Regulation, and his hierarchy, according to Article 34 of the Implementing Rules, so that if the existence of a conflict of interests is confirmed, the official concerned shall withdraw from the ongoing procedure. This obligation is recalled in Articles 146 and 178 of the Implementing Rules for all members of evaluation committees for tenders and proposals.

This current legal framework seems adequate to protect the financial interests of the Community as it enables all authorising officers to check any situation where they have reasonable doubts as to a specific candidate firm.

The Commission notes that the information provided in the Honourable Member's written question would not justify enquiries in this specific case.

---

(1)  See page 508.

(2)  SEC1999) 1801/2.

(3)  SEC(2003) 387/2.

(4)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(5)  Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, OJ L 26, 31.1.1977.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/546

---

(2004/C 84 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Flight and duty time limitations for airline pilots

While being committed to the cause of aviation safety, and a supporter of the goal to harmonise flight and duty time limitations (FTL) within the EU, some criticism of the current proposals governing FTL has come to my attention.

In light of this criticism, what plans does the Commission have to get the Simpson proposals independently assessed on a medical/scientific basis?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission finalised on 10 February 2004 an amended proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (1). This new proposal integrates, under Annex III, Subpart Q, the Flight Time Limitation scheme proposed by the Parliament (2). In addition, the Commission proposes to add a new article to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (3) introducing a revision of the aforementioned Subpart Q based on a scientific and medical evaluation of its provisions to be carried out by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

After the future extension of the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) tasks to air operations, as provided by Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 (4), the Commission will require EASA to proceed to this scientific and medical assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000, as modified by the amended proposal presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.

(2)  Report No A5-0263/2002 of 10.7.2002.

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, OJ L 240, 7.9.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/546

---

(2004/C 84 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Creation of a Community body for the study of unexplained atmospheric phenomena

For a long time now, sightings of unexplained atmospheric phenomena have been reported in all corners of the globe.

Some of these phenomena have been classified as ‘unidentified flying objects’ (UFOs), sightings of which not only cause considerable perplexity but also fuel theories — so far lacking any foundation — on the probable existence of aliens.

The serious study of the phenomena in question by various European space centres and research establishments warrants special attention from the European Commission, since these phenomena do not fall within the scope of individual Member State competence.

In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it appropriate to promote and coordinate research and information on unexplained atmospheric phenomena at a Europe-wide level, possibly assigning this responsibility to a specialised and experienced body such as SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes Rares Aérospatiaux) in Toulouse or the European Space Agency?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Following an extensive consultation for the development of the European Space Policy (‘Green Paper’) (1) the Commission adopted in December 2003 a White Paper entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union’ (2).

The White Paper, which has been prepared in close collaboration with the scientific community and the European Space Agency, sets an action plan for implementing the future European Space policy. The actions recommended by the Commission to strengthen European excellence in space science are presented in Section 4.2.

On 28 January 2004, the Commission had the opportunity to address some of these issues in its oral reply to the oral question O-84/03 during Parliament's January 2004 session (3) on the content of the White Paper.

One specific activity which may be of particular interest to the Honourable Member concerns an action recently launched in the context of the 6th Framework Programme for Research (4). This action aims at promoting cooperation between Europe's national research funding agencies and national research organisations. It includes a task specifically addressing European solar terrestrial and atmospheric research. This endeavour should help to improve the level of understanding of atmospheric phenomena and to provide space weather services.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 17 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 673 final.

(3)  Oral reply, 28.1.2004.

(4)  Specific Support Action: European Science Foundation Collaborative Research Programmes Scheme (Eurocores).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/547 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/547

---

(2004/C 84 E/0624)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0199/04

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Ethnic census

The European Commission has launched Community infringements proceedings against the Italian State with regard to the application, in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, of rules relating to the ethnic census that are considered to conflict with the Treaty on European Union. The grounds for these proceedings include serious violations of the privacy of citizens, who are obliged to declare, alongside their names, the ethnic group to which they belong and to supply other cultural and political information relating to their persons. The compulsory nature of this declaration is also considered to entail violations of the principles of non-discrimination and equal opportunities, proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, for citizens belonging to ethnic groups and different cultures or religions and speaking different languages.

In the light of the above and since the whole process of integration and cohesion in the European Union is based on the principle of mutual dialogue and the dismantling of differences and that formal notice was served to the Italian State on 10 December 2003, with a hearing on 15 January 2004, can the Commission state:

| 1. | What violations of the Treaty provide the grounds for the Community infringement proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What violations of the Treaty provide the grounds for the Community infringement proceedings?

| 2. | Why the proceedings were suspended and postponed for three months, who requested this suspension and on what grounds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why the proceedings were suspended and postponed for three months, who requested this suspension and on what grounds?

| 3. | Whether it is true that Austria exerted significant pressure on the Commission, via the political apparatus and diplomatic sources, to secure that suspension? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Whether it is true that Austria exerted significant pressure on the Commission, via the political apparatus and diplomatic sources, to secure that suspension?

| 4. | How it views the anti-historical presumption of a tutelary role for Austria in Alto Adige/South Tyrol (Italian territory) based on the obsolete Treaty of Paris? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How it views the anti-historical presumption of a tutelary role for Austria in Alto Adige/South Tyrol (Italian territory) based on the obsolete Treaty of Paris?

| 5. | Whether it can foresee a reversal of the decision to postpone proceedings, with these continuing in accordance with the time limits and procedures laid down, which are equitable to all? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Whether it can foresee a reversal of the decision to postpone proceedings, with these continuing in accordance with the time limits and procedures laid down, which are equitable to all?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is analysing the legislation relating to the linguistic census of the Province of Bolzano on the basis of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), in particular Articles 6.1.c and 8 thereof. Article 6.1.c states that: ‘Member States shall provide that personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed’. Article 8 offers enhanced protection to sensitive data such as data revealing ethnic origin. The Directive aims to ensure the functioning of an internal market in accordance with the EC Treaty, in particular Article 49 thereof, providing for the free flow of personal data between Member States while at the same time safeguarding the fundamental right to privacy. However, it should be noted that the Commission has not yet taken any decision on an infringement procedure concerning the compatibility of the rules on the linguistic census with the provisions mentioned above.

The case is being dealt with under the normal Commission proceedings rules currently applicable to the handling of complaints. In the investigation of complaints and established infringements, sincere co-operation and a climate of mutual confidence between the Commission and the Member State concerned are required to allow both parties to engage in appropriate discussions in search of a Community-compatible solution. With this objective in view, the Commission has raised with the competent authorities, in this case the Italian authorities, the different issues that might constitute an eventual breach of the above-mentioned provisions, and contacts are still on-going.

The Commission has nothing to state on the Treaty of Paris, the provisions of which are not subject to scrutiny in this case.

---

(1)  OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/548 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/548

---

(2004/C 84 E/0625)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Financial reporting

What benefits does the Commission see for Parmalat shareholders and debtholders in the fact that the company was reporting on a quarterly basis?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

It is not the Commission's policy to comment on cases that are sub judice.

On a general level, and without referring specifically to the Parmalat case, the Commission believes that there is a greater likelihood of accounting fraud being detected quickly when companies are required to present reports or financial statements four times a year rather than just once a year. A shareholder is likely to have swifter access to information about any cash-flow problems when reports or financial statements are quarterly rather than annual, provided that the information distributed is not erroneous or misleading. Fuller information does not make fraud impossible but does enable it to be detected more easily.

Finally, from a statistical point of view, no firm conclusions or correlations can be drawn from a single isolated investigation.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/549 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/549

---

(2004/C 84 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Protecting SMEs against multinationals: the case of Ford dealers in Italy

The commercial policy pursued in recent years by the company Ford Italia, centring on the ‘mopping-up’ of leading car dealers and their concentration under the direct control of figurehead companies, has created great difficulties for the old dealers, with dozens of SMEs deliberately being eliminated from the market.

Does the Commission not consider this abusive conduct of the multinational Ford in respect of its dealers to restrict the freedom to compete of SMEs operating in the automotive trade market, and therefore also to occasion prejudice to the more general interests of the consumer, by creating a situation where there is unfair competition from companies only ‘autonomous’ of the mother company in appearance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Like other suppliers, car manufacturers are generally free to distribute their products as they see fit, providing that their distribution system does not infringe Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty. They may therefore choose to distribute their products through their own outlets, or through car dealers that are commercially independent.

Ford currently operates a quantitative selective distribution system in Italy. Quantitative selection allows the car manufacturer to reduce the number of dealers in its network, so long as the contractual notice periods are respected. As Commission Regulation 1400/2002 (1) makes plain, such a system is permissible under Article 81 of the EC Treaty, provided that the agreements in question contain none of the serious restrictions of competition set out in Article 4 of the said regulation, and provided that the conditions set out in Articles 3 and 5 are met.

Ford's decision to exclude certain dealers from its network and to move towards a more vertically-integrated distribution structure is also unlikely to infringe Article 82 of the EC Treaty, since Ford can not be said to be in a dominant position on the Italian market.

As far as takeover activity is concerned, the Honourable Member should note that the dealer sector in Europe is highly fragmented, and levels of concentration are generally insufficient for the Community merger rules to be called into play.

It would therefore appear that the Commission has no grounds to take any action in respect of Ford's move to consolidate its Italian distribution network.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/550 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/550

---

(2004/C 84 E/0627)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Selection procedures of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

In Official Journal (1), the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work announced that it would be organising a series of selection procedures to recruit staff. According to the announcement: ‘These procedures will be published in English and French only’.

However Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 (2) of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work states that: ‘The language arrangements of the institutions of the Community shall apply to the Agency’.

Under Article 22 of this Regulation, the Commission examines the legality of the Agency's acts.

Does the Commission believe that the Agency is acting legally by publishing the above selection procedure in English and French only?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission pays careful attention to the selection procedures applied by the various Community Agencies, including respect for the provisions relating to the use of, and fluency in, official languages.

It takes the view, however, that in certain circumstances the service interests of an Institution or Agency, including its own internal needs, may justify the requirement for a knowledge of certain languages. This will obviously be the case if the field of activity of a post (or posts) to be filled means that the specific duties involved call for knowledge of one particular language or another.

---

(1)  OJ C 8 A, 13.1.2004.

(2)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/550 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/550

---

(2004/C 84 E/0628)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0212/04

by Simon Murphy (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Driftnets

Is the Commission aware that despite the EU ban on illegal driftnetting, on 27 March and 4 April 2003 the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry issued two decrees which allow fishers who have converted their ‘spadare’ driftnets (wide mesh driftnet used almost exclusively for swordfish) into ‘ferrettare’ (a smaller mesh driftnet) to add a ‘reta da posta fissa’ (a net that is launched and then sits there waiting for fish to get entrapped) not longer than 5km to their current gear, provided that they acquire an additional licence?

The Italian fishing industry has praised these decisions, while there has been strong opposition from environmentalists and the media.

There is also growing evidence that some Italian fishing vessel owners have created fishing cooperatives in Mediterranean countries outside the EU in order to continue their driftnet fishing undisturbed.

Would the Commission please provide details of its discussions with the Italian Government on these decrees and other concerns, and what action it plans to take to ensure full enforcement of the EU ban on driftnetting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Community law prohibits only the use of driftnets targeting a certain group of highly migratory species listed in the Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 (1) as it was last modified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 (2); other driftnet fisheries are therefore permitted.

In 1995, Italy reorganized and rationalized the use of various fishing gears within a new system of fishing licences. Under the collective term of ‘Ferrettara’ different traditional driftnet fisheries were classified using mesh sizes smaller than 180 millimetres (mm) and, therefore, not targeting swordfish or albacore. Since then, both a phasing out process and further regulatory actions for small mesh size driftnets has been undertaken to comply with the Community law.

Nowadays, the ‘ferrettara’ is regulated to comply with the list of species of Annex VIII and can operate only with a mesh size smaller than 100 mm, with a maximum length of 2,0 kilometres (km) and at a distance of the coast shorter than three nautical miles. Its regulation is in line with Community law.

The reduced economic profitability of fishing vessels having only a fishing licence for the ‘ferrettara’ has led the Italian authorities to provide them with authorisation to use an additional fishing gear category which should allow them to extract their livelihood from the sea.

The overall height limitation of four metres for these bottom set nets should prevent circumvention of the law regulating the use of driftnets.

The Commission is not aware of any Italian fishing vessel owner that has created fishing cooperatives in other countries than EU Mediterranean countries.

However, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (3) may make it possible to extend, under certain conditions, the application of the provisions of the common fisheries policy to activities practised by nationals of Member States.

The Commission will continue to monitor the proper implementation of, and compliance with, Community legislation through its inspection service.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, OJ L 132, 23.5.1997.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/552 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/552

---

(2004/C 84 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Threats to Po Valley producers as a result of the euro's excessive rise against the dollar

The European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy recently expressed concern at the strength of the euro exchange rate against the dollar, saying that this could harm Europe's competitiveness, yet at the same time the spokesman for the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, Gerassimos Thomas, confirmed the Commission's determination to pursue a strong euro.

Statements by ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet that the strengthening of the single currency is having a negative impact on exports seem to confirm Mr Lamy's concern, but he goes on to say that exports are holding up despite the strong euro.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to allay the fears expressed, in particular by small businesses in the Po Valley, that any further strengthening of the European currency could cause losses of around two billion euros to producers in the north-east of the Po Valley within a few months?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The euro has undergone an appreciation of around 25 per cent against the dollar since the start of 2003. However, what matters for competitiveness is the real effective exchange rate. The real effective exchange rate is based on the evolution of the euro against a basket of currencies, weighted according to their importance in the external trade of the euro area. It also takes into account differences in inflation rates. The euro-area real effective exchange rate has only appreciated by around 8 % since January 2003 (when deflated by nominal unit labour costs) and by 3 % since 1999.

While a strengthening euro does have a negative impact on the competitiveness of euro-area exports, this effect has been offset by a rebound in the growth of world trade, as economic activity in the major regions of the global economy continues to strengthen. Furthermore, a stronger euro helps to support higher domestic demand in the euro area.

The Commission believes that a stable exchange rate is in Europe's interest. It will closely monitor developments in foreign exchange markets over the coming months.

Concerning small businesses (up to 50 employees) in the Po Valley, one of the major objectives of Structural Funds actions in Italy is to promote an increase in the competitiveness of firms, notably by promoting product and process innovation, in order to strengthen their export-capacity: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also benefit from the leverage effect of venture capital and guarantee instruments managed by the European Investment Fund.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/552 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/552

---

(2004/C 84 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0222/04

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Cotton

France has recently presented a ‘European Cotton Initiative’ in support of Africa's cotton-based economies, advocating the reform of the Community cotton industry subsidy arrangement, so as to reduce the allegedly market-distorting subsidies granted by the EU.

Does the Commission believe that the French Government's major interests in the African cotton sector via the French Company for Developing Textile Fibres, which has a large network of branches in Africa, might underpin the way in which the Community negotiators tolerated the belligerency of a group of African countries at the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancún, when those countries attacked the Community arrangements?

The problem of African cotton's inability to compete with cotton from elsewhere and with other textile fibres will not be resolved by the disappearance of the Community cotton industry. Does the Commission therefore believe that the interests of a single country justify launching a proposal to reform the sector which could put an end to the viability of EU cotton farming, given that, moreover, our cotton production represents merely 2 % of world production, our exports 1,5 % of world trade, we import cotton virtually duty free, and we do not grant export refunds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The proposal for reform of the Community cotton aid scheme has no link whatsoever with the interests of the French-owned textile industry in West and Central Africa. Its justification can be found in the terms of the Luxembourg Council compromise of June 2003 whereby political agreement was obtained on fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy and the Commission was charged with presenting legislative adjustments for Mediterranean products on the same lines.

In the Doha Development Agenda negotiations the Union has pointed to the very marginal role of European cotton on the world market and in particular its very limited impact on the world price of the fibre. Not being a net exporter but on the contrary the biggest importer, the Union has to accept prices and does not determine them. At the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun, following a request by a number of African countries for measures to address the depression in world market prices for cotton, the Commission proposed a constructive solution, within the overall DDA agricultural negotiations on the three pillars of market access, export support and domestic support, that addressed the trade issues related to the price depression. This solution was further elaborated in the Commission Communication Reviving the DDA Negotiations of 26 November 2003 that has been endorsed by the Member States.

The reform proposal for cotton is a response both to the compromise and to the abovementioned commitment. There is definitely no aim of abolishing Community production to the benefit of the production chain in any non-EU country.

We must also stress that the WTO initiative of these African countries concerned needs to find an adequate response. It is essential that the developing countries integrate themselves more fully into world trade and also into the negotiating fora for international trade, particularly the WTO.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/553 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/553

---

(2004/C 84 E/0631)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0230/04

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003

Can the Commission provide a breakdown for each Member State of the level of commitments and expenditure effected by the close of 2003 under the Community Support Frameworks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a computer print-out containing the information requested.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/554 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/554

---

(2004/C 84 E/0632)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Euro

Does the Commission agree with former Commission President Jacques Delors, who has been reported as saying that the euro-zone has failed to exploit the economic potential of the single currency, and that therefore, with hindsight, the UK was right to retain the pound and to decline to join the euro?

Does the Commission as a whole agree with current Commission President Romano Prodi, who has said that the Stability and Growth Pact, designed to underpin the single currency, is ‘stupid’?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Exploiting the economic potential of the single currency goes beyond adopting the euro. It implies developing an overall economic strategy aiming at increasing growth potential. This is what the Lisbon European Council's (23/24 March 2000) strategy aims at. Economic reforms to raise Europe's growth potential are a key element of this strategy. Progress in implementing that strategy is reviewed each year by the Spring European Council on the basis of a Commission Report. The latest Spring Report, adopted by the Commission on 21 January 2004 concludes that although progress has been made in a number of key fields, the implementation of the reforms by the Member States does not measure up to the task, and a number of sectors are even encountering significant difficulties.

Nevertheless, there has been some progress in job creation: 6 million jobs created since 1999, in spite of the economic slowdown; significant improvements in long-term unemployment and the rate of female employment; opening up to competition of several strategic network markets (telecommunications, energy, rail freight, etc.); internet take-up in schools, businesses, public administrations and households.

The Commission has always said that the United Kingdom will be welcomed in the euro area if it meets the convergence criteria as laid down by the EC Treaty, should the United Kingdom decide that it wishes to adopt the euro. On 9 June 2003 the United Kingdom Government also published its own assessment of its five economic tests for the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) entry, acknowledging the benefits from adopting the euro but deeming that the moment was not ripe.

On 27 November 2002 the Commission adopted a communication laying down proposals to reinforce the co-ordination of budgetary policies (1). The proposals aimed at strengthening the economic rationale underpinning budgetary policy decisions as part of general strategy to strengthen economic policy co-ordination, putting more emphasis on the interrelation between budgetary policy and the need for structural reforms in the Union.

On 13 January 2004, the Commission further adopted a three-pronged strategy to clarify and improve economic policy coordination and surveillance (2). As part of this strategy, based on the experience of the five first years of EMU and building on the November 2002 Communication, the Commission, will make new proposals for the strengthening of economic governance in the future. Improvements in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact will form part of this initiative.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 668 final.

(2)  See also answer to Written Question E-4071/03 by Mr Ribeiro e Castro, See page 520.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/555 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/555

---

(2004/C 84 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/04

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Start of work on the Ebro Transfer

The Spanish Ministry of the Environment has announced that the government will lay the first stone in the work on the Ebro Transfer at the end of February, more specifically on the section linking the underground stretch of the River Segura to the Campos del Rio aqueduct in Murcia and the mouth of the Saltador al Camino del Cerro Minado tunnel in Almanzora (Almería). Likewise, a company under contract from the Spanish Ministry of the Environment has started excavations at Ulldecona and Alcanar in the province of Tarragona. At her meeting with the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on 16 December 2003, the Environment Commissioner gave assurances that the work on the Ebro Transfer would be viewed as a whole and not as separate projects.

Can the projects in question be financed separately or must they be included in the overall Ebro Transfer package? Has an application for European Union funding been made for these projects? Will such funding be granted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The Spanish authorities have submitted to the Commission for co-financing under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund a set of four projects linked to the Ebro transfer. For one of the projects, the northern sector, community co-financing has been requested under the Cohesion Fund while for the other three (major projects) the requests have been made under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), within the framework of the regional Operational Programmes for Valencia, Murcia and Andalucía.

The dates from which expenditure can be considered eligible for these projects is 29 December 2004 for the Cohesion Fund and the 1 January 2000 for the Structural Funds. It is not necessary for the Spanish authorities to await a decision by the Commission to launch these projects, although in such a situation the authorities incur the risk that the project does not meet the conditions necessary for approval by the Commission as set out in the relevant regulations.

While the above-mentioned projects have been presented as a group and, will, therefore, be evaluated as such by the Commission; it remains the exclusive competence of the Spanish authorities to decide on the most appropriate way to implement them, including matters related to the number of construction contracts considered necessary for technical or efficiency reasons.

At present, the Commission is in the process of analysing the submitted projects. A decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for these projects can only be taken once all the information has been carefully analysed. This decision will be made according to the existing rules and procedures as set down in the relevant regulations, and in full compliance with the applicable Community legislation and policies including those relating to the environment.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/556 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/556

---

(2004/C 84 E/0634)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/04

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) and Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Revision of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, icecream and other foodstuffs

We have received queries from medium-sized bakeries with regard to the obligation to provide detailed evidence in respect of butter consumption in excess of seven tonnes per year, and to the problems this causes.

It is impossible for a medium-sized bakery to provide evidence that every single gram of butter sold at reduced prices has been processed, or to bear the huge administrative costs this would entail. This results in regular fines and thus gradual increases in the prices of pastry products.

In this context, is the Commission considering revising the above Regulation (2571/97/EC (1)) so that the obligation for bakeries to provide evidence of processing butter in excess of seven tonnes per year is greatly simplified or abolished? Has a revision procedure to this effect already been started on the initiative of a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

This disposal measure is an important means to maintain a reasonable balance on the butter market and avoid purchases of butter into public intervention.

Appropriate control measures are needed in order to ensure that the rules of the Regulation are respected and to protect against abuse of Community funds. However, the control requirements specified in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 vary subject to tracing or not of the subsidized products and to the quantities used by the operators incorporating the subsidized product into the intermediary or final products.

For smaller operators undertaking in writing to purchase less than nine tonnes of butter equivalent per 12-month period, the controls are less severe (see Article 23(6) of the Regulation). However, an increase of the maximum quantity of nine tonnes for smaller operators is at present under consideration in the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products.

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States to introduce control measures ensuring that the maximum quantities, for which a less severe control applies, are respected.

For other operators the control requirements for incorporation into the final products and the control frequency are described in Article 23(4). Checks of recipes and records as well as sampling at a frequency based on the quantities used, and, in the case of traced products, at least once a month if five tonnes or more is used in the establishment per month, are required. The control requirements for medium size and bigger operators are considered reasonable measures ensuring that the conditions of the Regulation are respected.

---

(1)  OJ L 350, 20.12.1997, p. 3.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/557 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/557

---

(2004/C 84 E/0635)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0252/04

by Raquel Cardoso (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Financing of the Natura 2000 network

Since 1992 Article 8 of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992) has provided for the co-financing of the Natura 2000 network. The Commission's work programme for 2003 included the submission of a communication on the financing of the Natura 2000 network in September.

A number of Member States have asked Commissioner Margot Wallström at successive meetings of the Environment Ministers' Council for details of the Commission's response to the Natura 2000 network's funding needs. The Commission's replies to these questions have clearly been unsatisfactory.

Will the Commission commit itself to submitting the communication on the financing of the Natura 2000 network by a specific date so as to meet the objectives set out in the Sixth Environment Action Programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission has committed itself to submitting a Communication on the Financing of Natura 2000 in 2004. This proposal has been carried forward from its 2003 working programme. The Communication is expected for the first half of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/557 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/557

---

(2004/C 84 E/0636)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/04

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Highways plan for Majorca

The Conseil de Mallorca, which is the authority responsible for highways on the island of Majorca, recently adopted the Plan de Carreteras master plan for the construction of roads and motorways on the island in coming years. This plan raises the possibility, among other things, of the construction of up to seven new motorways and dual carriageways, which taken together would spell the destruction of over 2 000 hectares of countryside, including 120 hectares of scrub (Oleo-Ceratonion alliance), pinewood (pinus halepensis) and evergreen oakwood (Quercion-ilicis alliance).

As various social and economic players on Majorca have indicated, the Plan de Carreteras was adopted without any environmental impact assessment being carried out. No consideration was given to the effect the plan would have on the environment, nor to measures aimed at minimising the impact on the flora and fauna affected. The Plan de Carreteras was adopted without the requisite legal documentation being produced and in contravention of the Commission directive requiring Member States to conduct environmental impact assessments on public projects that may have significant repercussions for the environment.

In view of this, does the Commission consider the adoption of the Plan de Carreteras to be another case of non-fulfilment of the Directive on environmental impact assessment, as recently reported to the European Court of Justice? Consequently, would it say that this highways plan is not based on the principles of precaution, preventive action and rectification of environmental damage set out in Article 174(2) (ex 130r) TEC? Does it satisfy the Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the adoption of a master plan for the construction of roads and motorways on the island in the coming years, which has not been submitted to an environmental impact assessment. In this plan there is the possibility for constructing up to seven new motorways and dual carriageways.

As regards the non-submission of the plan to an environmental impact assessment, it is to be noted that at present, there is no provision in Environmental Impact Assessment Community law which requires Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of their draft plans or programmes, or of proposed modifications. The position will change on 21 July 2004, the date by which Member States must complete their transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive) (1). Thereafter, Member States will have to carry out an environmental assessment of plans and programmes which meet the definition in the Directive. In some circumstances, plans or programmes begun before 21 July 2004 but not adopted until after 21 July 2006 might also require assessment. The SEA Directive is adopted according to Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty and in its preamble specific references are made to the principles of precaution and preventive action.

However, once application for the construction of the particular projects is made, then Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (EIA Directive) (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/ECof 3 March 1997 (3), and dealing with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects will be applicable. It provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. The construction of motorways falls into Annex I point 7(b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. For other projects, such as roads not falling into Annex I, Annex II applies. In this case, the national authorities have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Written Questions E-3346/03 by Mr Mayol i Raynal (4), E-3822/03 by Mr Mayol i Raynal (5) and E-3865/03 by Mrs Isler Béguin (6) also concerning the issue have been submitted to the Commission. Consequently, the Commission has opened a case in order to investigate the matter raised in those questions and to ask for clarifications from the Spanish authorities.

As regards the nature conservation issues, the European legislation for nature conservation include both Council Directives 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (7) and 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (8). Implementation of these Directives aims to establish a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation (SAC) and special protection areas (SPA) that shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. Nevertheless, if the road master plan is likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects on the Natura 2000 network of Baleares, an appropriate environmental assessment following the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive is needed.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(5)  See page 102.

(6)  See page 107.

(7)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(8)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/559 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/559

---

(2004/C 84 E/0637)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/04

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Introduction of tolls on state highway 47, Valsugana

The autonomous province of Trento has announced that it intends to introduce road tolls on state highway 47 in Valsugana, Italy, within the territory under its jurisdiction.

The tolls would affect only passenger and international haulage vehicles.

Given the existing problems with road links between the Veneto region and the Brenner pass and the bureaucratic and political delays hampering the completion of the A 31 Valdastico motorway, which mean that Valsugana is the natural transit route for those wishing to travel from the Veneto and Friuli regions to the Brenner pass and to the centre of Europe, and bearing in mind the recent Commission guidelines on road pricing, will the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it is aware of this measure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it is aware of this measure?

| 2. | whether it agrees that this provision represents a serious restriction on the free movement of goods and persons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it agrees that this provision represents a serious restriction on the free movement of goods and persons?

| 3. | whether there may be infringements of the criteria for state aids and of the rules of competition? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether there may be infringements of the criteria for state aids and of the rules of competition?

| 4. | whether it considers this measure dangerous in terms of the reaction it may provoke on the part of the authorities in other areas traversed by Highway 47 or other major traffic arteries? |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether it considers this measure dangerous in terms of the reaction it may provoke on the part of the authorities in other areas traversed by Highway 47 or other major traffic arteries?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the plans to apply tolls in Valsugana in Italy which the Honourable Member is referring to.

The specific Community legal instrument for the levying of taxes, tolls and user charges is Directive 1999/62/EC (1). It is targeted to heavy goods vehicles of 12 tonnes and more. It is to be underlined that Member States levying tolls on goods vehicles below 12 tonnes and for passenger vehicles, including long distance coaches, do not have to comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC as such vehicles fall outside its scope.

Whether other vehicles than those covered by Directive 1999/62/EC are tolled or not, is a matter of subsidiarity, where Member States can make more efficient decisions taking into account local circumstances.

In any case, tolls may not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of the nationality of the haulier or the origin or destination of the vehicle. As far as heavy goods vehicles are concerned, tolls may only be levied on motorways and roads with similar characteristics. In addition, Member States are bound to respect the free movement provisions contained in the Treaties: in particular, they must refrain from adopting measures which are capable of hindering intra-Community trade, as would be the case for an unreasonably high toll applied on one particular route mostly used by hauliers travelling from and to other Member States.

In order to further develop the transparency of tolls and to implement the ‘user pays’ principle, in July 2003) the Commission made a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (2), covering all goods vehicles of more than 3,5 tonnes using roads on the Trans-European Network (TEN). This proposal also includes the possibility to have mark-ups to the tolls in sensitive areas, intended to finance transport infrastructure projects of high European interest in the same zone or corridor. Tolls concerning other vehicles or other roads will be left to subsidiarity.

The Commission will contact the Italian Authorities in order to clarify the points raised by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2)  COM(2003)448 final, 2003/0175 (COD).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/560 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/560

---

(2004/C 84 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Counterfeit euro coins and banknotes

According to European Anti-Fraud Office, ten times as many counterfeit euro coins (26191) were withdrawn from circulation in 2003 as in 2002. The quality of counterfeit coins also improved in 2003.

The European Central Bank has also announced that EUR 551 287 banknotes were removed from circulation in 2003.

It is important to note, however, that these numbers are low in relation to the total number of coins (49 billion) and banknotes (9 billion) in circulation. Nevertheless, the rise in the counterfeit rate and the steady improvement of counterfeit techniques is a source of concern for European consumers.

Has the Commission considered taking more effective steps to combat this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The protection of euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting is carried out jointly by the competent national authorities, the European Central Bank (ECB), Europol and the Commission. The roles and responsibilities of the European institutions and bodies are complementary.

Appropriate Community and EU legislation to protect euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting has been adopted including:

| — | legislation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1);

| — | legislation increasing protection of euro banknotes and coins by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting (2); and |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation increasing protection of euro banknotes and coins by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting (2); and

| — | legislation establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme (Pericles) for the protection of the euro (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme (Pericles) for the protection of the euro (3).

These mechanisms guarantee strong protection of euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting, enhance collaboration across borders and disciplines, and support intense training at national, European and international level.

In addition to these measures, the Commission, in collaboration with Member States and the ECB, continues to concentrate on the correct implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, particularly Article 6 regarding the obligations of credit institutions.

The Commission is also committing resources to the complete implementation of the Community ‘acquis’ regarding the protection of the euro in the new Member States.

The establishment of joint investigation teams among Member States, with the involvement of Europol, is enhancing actions by law enforcement agencies.

Finally, communication action is being intensified by the European Central Bank and the Commission, as regards the protection of the euro.

The Commission will continue to take all necessary initiatives to reinforce the protection of the euro banknotes and coins against fraud and counterfeiting.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. Council Decision OJ L 181, 4.7.2001 of 29 April 1999 extending Europol's mandate to deal with forgery of money, OJ C 149, 28.5.1999.

(2)  Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000 on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro, OJ L 140, 14.6.2000.

(3)  Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 339, 21.12.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/561 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/561

---

(2004/C 84 E/0639)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0273/04

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Automar srl — concessionaire for Mercedes Benz motor vehicles

Knowing that:

| 1. | The company Automar srl is based at Via SS 148 Pontina No 41, Latina, Italy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The company Automar srl is based at Via SS 148 Pontina No 41, Latina, Italy.

| 2. | Since 1968, this company has been the sole concessionaire for sales and assistance in Latina and the surrounding province for Mercedes Benz passenger cars and industrial vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since 1968, this company has been the sole concessionaire for sales and assistance in Latina and the surrounding province for Mercedes Benz passenger cars and industrial vehicles.

| 3. | Since 1997, this authorisation has been limited to passenger cars only. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since 1997, this authorisation has been limited to passenger cars only.

| 4. | The company currently has an annual turnover of around EUR 15 million and provides employment for some 50 staff. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The company currently has an annual turnover of around EUR 15 million and provides employment for some 50 staff.

| 5. | In the period 1997-2000, Automar, on the strength of this agency contract, invested EUR 3,5 million on technological modernisation and new services. All these initiatives were authorised and/or supported by the mother company. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the period 1997-2000, Automar, on the strength of this agency contract, invested EUR 3,5 million on technological modernisation and new services. All these initiatives were authorised and/or supported by the mother company.

| 6. | On 19 September 2002, Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa unilaterally terminated the contract on the basis of the agreement in Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1), giving 12 months' notice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 19 September 2002, Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa unilaterally terminated the contract on the basis of the agreement in Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1), giving 12 months' notice.

| 7. | In 2001, while the contract was still in force, Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa signed another concessionary contract with a different company and made sales of cars to the value of around EUR 2,6 million. |
| --- | --- |

7.

In 2001, while the contract was still in force, Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa signed another concessionary contract with a different company and made sales of cars to the value of around EUR 2,6 million.

| 8. | Automar contested this activity in August 2002. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Automar contested this activity in August 2002.

| 9. | Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa changed its relationship with the new concessionaire, creating with the latter a NEW Co of which it holds a 51 % stake. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa changed its relationship with the new concessionaire, creating with the latter a NEW Co of which it holds a 51 % stake.

| 10. | Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa offered Automar the chance to set up another NEW Co on its own terms or for Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa to acquire Automar at a greatly reduced price. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa offered Automar the chance to set up another NEW Co on its own terms or for Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa to acquire Automar at a greatly reduced price.

| 11. | In keeping with Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, Automar requested an after-sales contract with Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa, who refused and proceeded to suspend the supply of spare parts and accessories from 2 September to 1 October 2003. |
| --- | --- |

11.

In keeping with Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, Automar requested an after-sales contract with Daimler Chrysler Italia Spa, who refused and proceeded to suspend the supply of spare parts and accessories from 2 September to 1 October 2003.

The Commission:

| (a) | Does it view the actions outlined above as legitimate, and, if it does, should not a notice period of 24, not 12, months be given? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Does it view the actions outlined above as legitimate, and, if it does, should not a notice period of 24, not 12, months be given?

| (b) | Does it not think it necessary to intervene to ensure that the Community rules are respected? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does it not think it necessary to intervene to ensure that the Community rules are respected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

First of all, it has to be emphasized that like other suppliers, car manufacturers are generally free to distribute their products, providing that their distribution system does not infringe Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty. They may therefore choose to distribute their products through their own outlets, or through car dealers that are commercially independent. In this respect, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that a move of a car manufacturer towards a more vertically-integrated distribution structure is in general compatible with Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (2), as well as with the previous Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 (3).

Furthermore, it should be noted that both Regulations cover quantitative selective distribution systems allowing car manufacturers to fix the number of dealers in their network, including through contract terminations, provided that certain notice periods are respected. As the notice of termination of Automar's dealership agreement was prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (4), Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 is applicable to this specific case. According to Article 5(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 (5), the notice period should not, as a general rule, be shorter than two years, if the agreement is concluded for an indefinite period. However, the Regulation provided for some exceptions (6), the main being the need for reorganization of the whole or a substantial part of the network, where the notice period could be reduced to one year. The question whether this exception applies to Automar's situation would have to be analysed in the light of the specific facts of the case (7).

As regards the appointment of another dealer, in 2001, while the dealership contract with Automar Srl was still in force, this possible violation of the contract could only be assessed in the light of the applicable civil law by the competent national court.

As far as the Automar request for an after-sales contract is concerned, it should first be noted that in order for the Mercedes Benz authorised after-sales network to be covered by the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, Mercedes Benz has normally (8) to apply a qualitative selective distribution system. In such a system, the selection criteria must be limited to what is required by the nature of the product, must be laid down uniformly for all potential repairers and must not be applied in a discriminatory manner. Consequently, Mercedes Benz must allow all repairers which fulfil these criteria to operate as authorised repairers, including those authorised dealers whose dealership contracts have been terminated but who would like to continue as authorised repairers (9). It has to be emphasized, however, that these provisions are applicable to pre-existing agreements only as from the 1 October 2003 (10).

It has to be observed that the specific problems raised in the Honourable Member's written question are likely to be better dealt with by the national competition authority or a national judge, having regard to the geographically limited impact of the practice and to the issues of contractual liability it raises.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements, OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(4)  According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, the Regulation entered into force on 1 October 2002.

(5)  This Regulation was applicable on the 19 September 2002, as the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 came into force on the 1 October 2002 and started to apply to the existing agreements on the 1 October 2003 (Articles 12 and 10 of the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002).

(6)  See Articles 5(2)(2) and 5(3).

(7)  The Commission gave its interpretation of the exception pertaining to the reorganization of the network in the Explanatory Brochure on Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 [Distribution of Motor Vehicles (Regulation (EC) No 1475/95). Explanatory Brochure (IV/9509/95 EN), published on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car_sector/distribution/#reg_1475_95]. See in particular the reply to question no 16.

(8)  This depends on the market share held by the supplier's network of authorised repairers in respect of repairs carried out on all motor vehicles of the brand in question (see reply to the question 72 in the Explanatory Brochure). If this market share exceeds 30 %, only a qualitative selective network is covered by the block exemption (see article 3(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002).

(9)  See Articles 3(1) and 1(1) (h) of the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 as well as replies to questions no 72-74 in the Explanatory Brochure on the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (Distribution and Servicing of Motor Vehicles in the EU. Explanatory Brochure, published on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car_sector/).

(10)  See Article 10 of the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 and, by analogy, the replies to questions 22 and 23 in the Explanatory Brochure on the Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, cited above.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/563 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/563

---

(2004/C 84 E/0640)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0275/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Articles 10 and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulate that the freedom of religion and expression is a human right for all EU citizens.

The French Government recently proposed to enshrine in law a ban on the physical manifestation of religious beliefs by wearing religious symbols (such as the hijab or headscarf) in state schools.

Does the Commission consider the French Government's proposal acceptable? What action does the Commission intend to take if this proposal is adopted into French law? Is the Commission currently taking any action?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the draft legislation in France that would ban the wearing of all religious symbols in state secondary schools.

Whether or not measures to ban the wearing of religious symbols are deemed to constitute unlawful discrimination under the terms of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) will depend on the concrete terms of the relevant legislation and on what justification is put forward by the Member States in question under the terms of the Directive.

The Commission is closely following the developments to which the Honourable Member refers and will consider the need for action and the form this should take in the event of violations of fundamental rights under Community law.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/564 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/564

---

(2004/C 84 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Air pollution

Would the Commission agree that the public has a right to be informed about the nature and quantity of pollutants released by businesses in Europe?

Is this right currently protected by EU legislation? If not, does the Commission intend to take measures towards this?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission agrees that the public has a right to be informed about the nature and quantity of pollutants released by businesses in Europe.

Public access to environmental information is currently laid down in Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 (1), which ensures freedom of access to information on the environment held by public authorities.

In order to get access to environmental information, a person (‘the public’) has to make a request to the public authority that he/she believes to hold the specific information. As a general rule, this right of access should be as wide as possible and only on the basis of a limited number of grounds may access to the information be refused. This Directive does not oblige the public authority to make available all environmental information it possesses on its own initiative, nor does the Directive itself oblige the public authority to collect such information.

The new Directive on public access to environmental information, Directive 2003/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 (2), amending and replacing Directive 90/313/EEC, contains not only the obligation for public authorities to give access to environmental information upon request, but also an obligation to actively disseminate environmental information. This Directive has to be implemented by the Member States by 14 February 2005.

In the field of pollutants released by businesses, the Commission will launch the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) on 23 February 2004 in the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. EPER is the first Europe-wide register of industrial emissions into air and water. For the first time, detailed information on the emissions of 50 pollutants from about 10 000 large industrial facilities in the EU will be publicly accessible on the internet (www.eper.cec.eu.int).

EPER was established by Commission Decision 2000/479/EC of 17 July 2000 on the implementation of a European pollutant register (EPER) according to Article 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (3), which is based on Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (4). In Article 15(3) of this Directive it is stated, that:

| | an inventory of the principal emissions and sources responsible shall be published every three years by the Commission on the basis of the data supplied by the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

an inventory of the principal emissions and sources responsible shall be published every three years by the Commission on the basis of the data supplied by the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2)  OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.

(3)  OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(4)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/565 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/565

---

(2004/C 84 E/0642)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   EU monkey experiments

I was very concerned to see the results of the undercover investigation by the UK Animal Rights Organisation BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) conducted at research facilities in Munster, Germany owned by Covance GmbH Laboratories. The investigation indicates poor enforcement of Directive 86/609/EEC (1) on the Protection of Animals used for Scientific and other Experimental Purposes. As there are many similar research facilities throughout the EU, the conditions at the Munster laboratory are of particular concern.

Please could the Commission respond to the findings of the BUAV investigation, and in particular say what is being done to prevent further similar breaches of Directive 86/609 taking place in future?

How many contract testing laboratories are currently operating in the EU?

To what extent is the Commission able to monitor conditions for test animals in these facilities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission has been informed about the treatment of non-human primates at the Covance animal research laboratories in Münster (in North Rhine-Westphalia) in Germany.

A subsequent Commission investigation showed that the German authorities have swiftly taken action. According to information from North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), the Minister of Environment of NRW has instructed the veterinarians in charge to immediately inspect the Covance laboratories. In addition, the German authorities have agreed to start the procedure to cancel Covance's licence to keep laboratory animals. The public prosecutor has also been involved. Since appropriate action has been taken by the German authorities, the Commission currently sees no need to conduct further investigations in this matter.

Directive 86/609/CEE on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes requires user establishments to be registered with the national authority. Article 13 requires Member States to provide statistical data only on the numbers of animals used in experiments. Therefore, the Commission does not possess any statistics on the numbers of contract laboratories in the EU.

According to Directive 86/609/CEE the control of laboratories carrying out animal experiments is the responsibility of the competent national authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/565 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/565

---

(2004/C 84 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/04

by Marco Cappato (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Cultural genocide in China

In her intervention during the discussion on the Prets report on cultural diversity on 13 January in Strasbourg, Commissioner Viviane Reding expressed her satisfaction that the EU had ‘won the battle’ at the Unesco General Assembly concerning the creation of an international instrument for the preservation of cultural diversity, in which the EU initiative relied on support from China. ‘ ... Moreover, the Chinese are supporting us in Unesco. We spoke about education as well, and all with an immense country like China which relies on Europe to help it preserve its cultural diversity ...’. Commissioner Reding also invited Parliament to reflect on the aspects ‘ ... which might be developed in this future Convention to listen to the concerns of our partners ...’

The Communist regime in China has been systematically implementing a policy of cultural genocide against minority peoples like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs for the last half-century, with measures such as forcibly sinicising Uyghur names, abolishing Uyghur language teaching in higher education, destroying the Uyghur cultural heritage in Kashghar and other cities, burning tens of thousands of Uyghur language books, forcibly changing the Uyghur alphabet three times in four decades and discriminating against Uyghur language schools in favour of Chinese schools, to give but a few examples.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the future Unesco Convention on Cultural Diversity will be an effective tool against such heinous crimes of cultural and political genocide?

Within the framework of enhanced cultural cooperation with China and on the basis of the publicly available information on the matter, does the Commission not consider that a preliminary study should be carried out on the extent and forms of the current cultural genocide in China, in order to ensure that EU cultural cooperation with China will never directly or indirectly give momentum to the cultural alienation and criminal sinicisation of the peoples of China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission attaches high importance to the situation of human rights throughout the world, including the respect of cultural diversity in countries like China. The associated rights to freedom of expression, association and religion as well as the preservation of the cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the minorities in China, and in particular in Tibet and Xinjiang, figure high on the agenda of the regular EU-China dialogue on human rights and in other high-level contacts with the Chinese authorities.

Negotiations in view of the adoption of a Convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions were launched in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) in October 2003 by consensus by a large majority of Unesco members including China, in view of the adoption of the convention at the next Unesco General Conference in autumn 2005. Such a convention is a follow-up to the Unesco Universal Declaration and Action Plan on Cultural Diversity, adopted in November 2001, and will continue to be firmly based on human rights like the latter instruments. The convention will aim to promote cultural diversity in all its forms, including minorities' rights, while ensuring that no country abuses the argument of the protection of cultural diversity to adopt and enforce policies and actions which are contrary to human rights. The Commission has, therefore, set up an internal working group to ensure a coordinated approach to the negotiation on a Unesco Convention on cultural diversity.

A reinforced EU-China cooperation will naturally take China's cultural diversity into account and should not be misunderstood as direct or indirect support to any actions that deprive minorities of their unalienable rights.

The bi-annual reports by Heads of Mission in Beijing are an important input for determining the EU's policy concerning minorities in China. These reports provide a regular update on the situation and suggest options for EU action.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/567

---

(2004/C 84 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0292/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Ship-building in Italy

In Trieste, Italy in recent years, shipyard capacity has increased substantially and orders have been received for ships in a way which prompts observers to suspect that operators there may have received State shipyard subsidies in a manner which differs from the practice in other EU Member States and on more favourable terms. Has the Commission investigated whether the Italian State is paying shipyard subsidies on the same basis as other EU Member States, or whether different, more favourable conditions apply there? If the conditions are more favourable, this distorts both competition in shipbuilding and subcontracting of work on ships.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

In the EU, the aid to ship-building is regulated, since 1 January 2004, by the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (1) that replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (expired on 31 December 2003) (2).

Italy has adopted a number of schemes based on the (EC) No 1540/98 Shipbuilding Regulation. These schemes were notified and approved by the Commission.

The Commission is not aware of any unwarranted applications or any illegal aid granted by the Italian State to the ship-building companies.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 30.12.2003.

(2)  OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/567

---

(2004/C 84 E/0645)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/04

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Interim procedure on state aids paid in accession countries

The competition chapter of the Accession Treaty provides for an interim procedure to be applied to state aids paid in acceding countries prior to their accession, which focuses on whether aid is ‘applicable after accession’.

In view of the number and complexity of the state aid cases, could the Commission please specify:

| 1. | How will it assess the criteria of applicability and, in the absence of any definition, would the Commission agree that it should be consistent with the plain meaning of the term? In this context, would the Commission agree, for example, that a guaranty outstanding at accession, or post-accession instalment payments of operating aid promised pre-accession, is ‘applicable’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How will it assess the criteria of applicability and, in the absence of any definition, would the Commission agree that it should be consistent with the plain meaning of the term? In this context, would the Commission agree, for example, that a guaranty outstanding at accession, or post-accession instalment payments of operating aid promised pre-accession, is ‘applicable’?

| 2. | How can it ensure that its interpretation of ‘applicable after accession’ is neither too broad nor too narrow, as this would greatly impact upon the number of distortive state aid measures to be reviewed by the Commission under the Interim Procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How can it ensure that its interpretation of ‘applicable after accession’ is neither too broad nor too narrow, as this would greatly impact upon the number of distortive state aid measures to be reviewed by the Commission under the Interim Procedure?

| 3. | What criteria and conditions will it employ in deciding whether a state aid is still applicable after accession? In particular, under what circumstances does the Commission consider aid granted to individual companies to be ‘still applicable after accession’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What criteria and conditions will it employ in deciding whether a state aid is still applicable after accession? In particular, under what circumstances does the Commission consider aid granted to individual companies to be ‘still applicable after accession’?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

Annex IV.3 of the Accession Treaty sets out the ‘interim mechanism’ procedure. It provides a legal framework for the assessment of aid schemes and individual aid measures put into effect in a new Member State before the date of accession and still applicable after accession. This procedure applies to those schemes and measures which have not already been included in the list of ‘existing aid’ measures attached to Annex IV and which were put into effect from 10 December 1994 onwards. Measures that are applicable after accession, which were put into effect before 10 December 1994 are regarded upon accession as existing aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty.

Under this ‘interim mechanism’ procedure, the compatibility with the common market of the aid measures applicable after accession must in the first instance be assessed by the national authority responsible for monitoring State aid in the relevant acceding country.

This monitoring authority can seek legal certainty by notifying the measures to the European Commission. Upon notification, the Commission will consider the compatibility with the common market of notified measures; this would logically be the case only for those measures which are considered ‘applicable after’.

If the Commission has serious doubts regarding the compatibility of the notified measures with the ‘acquis communautaire’, it can raise objections within three months from the date of receiving a complete notification. If the Commission does not object to notified measures within this deadline, the notified measures will be regarded as existing aid from the date of accession.

Aid measures that are not applicable after accession cannot be examined by the Commission under the procedures laid down in Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Given that the interim mechanism only determines whether a given measure constitutes existing aid for the purpose of State aid procedures taking place after accession, it neither requires nor empowers the Commission to review aid measures which are not applicable after accession.

Only such measures that can still give rise, after accession, to the grant of additional aid or to an increase in the amount of aid already granted, may qualify as existing aid by virtue of the interim mechanism — if they fulfil the relevant conditions — and are therefore subject to it. On the other hand, the interim mechanism is devoid of any purpose in respect of aid measures that have already been finally and unconditionally granted for a given amount before accession. Here again, in order to determine whether this is the case, the relevant criterion is the legally binding act by which the competent national authorities undertake to grant aid.

In recognising the immediate economic impact of state aid interventions, a measure must be assessed at the point in time when the aid is granted; it is the legal commitment of the state that is synonymous with the granting of aid and not the mere payment thereof. Any payment, current or future, under a legal commitment is an act of simple implementation and cannot be construed to be new or additional aid. Therefore, the Commission considers that for a measure to be considered as applicable after accession it must be shown that it is liable to produce an additional benefit that was not known, or not precisely known, when the aid was granted.

As it concerns more specifically State guarantees, it is difficult to take a definitive and general position, given the wide range of different guarantees that potentially exist.

Indeed, only the appraisal of the different characteristics of a given guarantee can allow the Commission to determine whether that guarantee can still give rise, after accession, to the grant of additional aid or to an increase in the amount of aid already granted.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/569 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/569

---

(2004/C 84 E/0646)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/04

by Theodoras Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Compliance with EU law of Spanish mining company Uminsa and possible frauds

In the last few weeks the mining company Uminsa has dismissed 16 miners, eight of whom are shop stewards for the Spanish trade unions ‘Comisiones Obreras’ and ‘Unión General de Trabajadores’. The company has justified the dismissals with allegations such as having illegally called for a strike, and a belief that these employees may have been working whilst on sick leave. Uminsa is a major beneficiary of state aid, from both the Spanish State and the European Union, despite not respecting the current Coal Plan (Plan del Carbón)'s labour agreement, which provides that the company would create four new job places for 11 retirements, and forcing the miners to carry out unpaid overtime.

All evidence suggests that these are the first dismissals from a longer list with the objective of restructuring the company's workforce; all of it done in an irregular fashion, especially if we take into account the fact that they are dismissing workers with less than three months left before they become eligible for early retirement.

Uminsa's mine where the 16 dismissed employees worked is located in Velilla del Rio Carrión, in the Province of Palencia, Castilla-León, Spain.

We believe that Uminsa's behaviour is unacceptable and that the European institutions must exercise their stewardship of jobs, especially in a deprived area receiving Objective 1 funding, by not granting or authorising public money to companies such as Uminsa that do not carry out their labour or social duties. Uminsa has in fact received since 1998 substantial public subventions through the ECSC Treaty (see answer to question E-0342/02 (1), 27 March 2002).

Can the European Commission assess whether Uminsa's actions comply with European labour law?

Furthermore, can the Commission investigate whether this might be a case of fraud on public funds, as the company is not fulfilling the objectives agreed to in the concession of such EU funds?

Can the Commission investigate whether the public money which has been allocated so far to Uminsa has been properly used? Can it make sure that Uminsa has not used the same aid for the same objective twice?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

Coal subsidies are assessed on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (2), which entered into force after the expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty. This Regulation lays down rules for the granting of State aid to the coal industry with the aim of contributing to the restructuring of the coal industry. The rules take account of the social and regional aspects of the sector's restructuring and the need for maintaining, as a precautionary measure, a minimum quantity of indigenous coal production to guarantee access to reserves. The restructuring process of the coal industry has to be continued, given that, in the future, most Community coal is likely to remain uncompetitive in relation to imported coal. The restructuring of the coal industry has major social and regional effects. Therefore mines can benefit, temporarily, from aid to alleviate the social and regional consequences of the restructuring. This enables Member States to implement adequate measures for the social and economic development of the areas affected by the restructuring.

In this respect the task of the Commission is to ensure that normal conditions of competition are established, maintained and complied with. The evidence provided by the Honourable Member, is not however sufficient at this stage to conclude the illegal use of EU or national funds.

The Commission is currently examining the compatibility of aid in favour of coal industry in the region where Uminsa is located (3), as well as the compatibility of a long-term restructuring plan for the period 2003 to 2006 of the Spanish coal industry. The examination of all relevant state aid aspects will be carried out in light of Council Regulation 1407/2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 122.

(2)  OJ L 205, 2.8.2002.

(3)  OJ C 105, 1.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/570 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/570

---

(2004/C 84 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/04

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Swedish nuclear power and the internal market

Since 1984 there has been a special production levy on nuclear power in Sweden which has been subsequently increased and, since 2000, has been converted into a fixed tax on the thermal effect of nuclear reactors. Sweden is the only Member State to impose this tax, which distorts competition on the internal market and gives electricity generated abroad competitive advantages on the deregulated electricity market. The tax has a powerful effect on the competitiveness of nuclear power producing companies and, therefore, on trade between Member States. In the draft budget for 2004, the Swedish Government states that the ‘effect tax’ may be compared to an extra income tax imposed on certain companies and is therefore to be regarded as a penalty. In other words, it discriminates solely against Swedish nuclear power.

The EU's directive on deregulation of the electricity and gas markets is being put into effect with the aim of creating more equal conditions. Some of the larger power companies in Sweden now have owners in other Member States, such as Finland and Germany. For such foreign owners, the impact of the Swedish tax on nuclear power is clearly detrimental since almost half of the electricity generated in Sweden is produced by nuclear power plants.

In recent years, the Commission has indicated in various ways that nuclear power is an important source of energy with beneficial environmental effects, not only in Europe but also worldwide, and that it is an effective means of achieving the Kyoto Protocol targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions. The Commission should, therefore, take a particularly serious view of the fact that Swedish nuclear power is taxed in such a way as to reduce the scope for investment. It is extremely unfortunate to restrict the production of nuclear power in smoothly operating nuclear power plants in this way, bearing in mind the work currently in progress to draft a directive on measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment.

In the light of the foregoing, what measures will the Commission take in response to the Swedish ‘effect tax’ on nuclear power, which is adversely affecting and distorting competition in power production on the internal market, impeding the process of deregulating the electricity market in the EU and reducing cross-border trade in electricity for the internationally owned and internationally operating energy companies concerned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Community law does not forbid reverse discrimination and does not affect Member States' energy policy with reference to their choice of energy sources. Specifically, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) only fixes minimum level taxation, leaving Member States free to apply higher taxes. The mentioned tax/levy has not hindered the development of an open efficient and competitive market among Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark: power quantity turned over (2) grew from 18,4 Terawatt-hour (TWh) in 1993 to 3 232,1 TWh in 2002, while traded volume grew from 18,4 TWh in 1993 to 1143,1 TWh in 2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.

(2)  Source: Nord Pool website: http://www.nordpool.com/information/index.html

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/571 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/571

---

(2004/C 84 E/0648)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Request for PDO for ‘Sant Andrea Piemonte rice’

On 27 May 2003 the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy submitted to the Commission, pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1), a request for registration of ‘Sant Andrea Piemonte’ rice as a PDO. By letter of 22 July I asked the Directorate-General for Agriculture for information on the progress of this application. On 14 August I received a reply from the director informing me that the application was being carefully considered by the Commission and that, if the request included all the particulars required under Community law, the Commission would, as provided for in Article 6 of the EEC regulation, publish an initial notice in the EU Official Journal.

Given that six months have elapsed since the request was submitted, i.e. the period within which, under Article 6(1), the Commission must verify whether the registration application includes all the particulars provided for in Article 4, and that no notification has been received by those directly concerned or by the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy from the relevant services:

The Commission:

| 1. | Can it explain the reasons for this unjustified delay? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it explain the reasons for this unjustified delay?

| 2. | Does it not consider, given the deadline set by the regulation, that the least it can do, in terms of transparency and efficiency, is to contact those directly concerned to explain the reasons for the delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it not consider, given the deadline set by the regulation, that the least it can do, in terms of transparency and efficiency, is to contact those directly concerned to explain the reasons for the delay?

| 3. | If the delay is due to staff shortages, could it not propose recruiting additional staff or using some of the hundreds of ‘stagiaires’ who work at the Commission? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the delay is due to staff shortages, could it not propose recruiting additional staff or using some of the hundreds of ‘stagiaires’ who work at the Commission?

| 4. | Does it not consider that, if the European Union is to be close to its citizens, it should show itself more capable of responding to the requests of bodies, individuals and institutions for the implementation of measures provided for in EU legislation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does it not consider that, if the European Union is to be close to its citizens, it should show itself more capable of responding to the requests of bodies, individuals and institutions for the implementation of measures provided for in EU legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

We do not dispute the facts of the situation as described by the Honourable Member.

The time taken to process applications for registration lodged with us under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has been increasing in recent months. Although twice as many registrations were made in 2003 as in 2002, the number of applications being processed at any one time has also been rising.

The assessment of applications involves internal consultations following one on another. Translations have to be made and the legal and technical aspects are complex. It is not suitable work for ‘stagiaires’.

We are aware that the amount of time taken to process applications annoys applicants and are considering what can be done to speed things up in future.

The registration application for Sant' Andrea Piemonte was received by the Agriculture Directorate-General on 27 May last year. Given the complexity of the questions that have to be dealt with when an application is assessed, it cannot reasonably be considered that the processing time in this case is already excessive.

DG AGRI is in ongoing contact with the Ministry for Agricultural and Forestry Policies in Italy, the Commission's official interlocutor on these matters. The reasons why applications at present take such a long time to be processed are not unknown to the Ministry. The rules allocate responsibilities between the Commission and Member States in such a way that the Commission is not empowered to enter into direct contact with the group making the application or any other person with a direct interest.

---

(1)  OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/572 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/572

---

(2004/C 84 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Stage reached in examining the territorial monopoly of German chimney-sweeps

According to a review carried out by the Directorate-General for Competition the territorial monopoly enjoyed by German chimney-sweeps does not contravene European competition law. Nevertheless, the Directorate-General for the Internal Market has launched investigations in the context of proceedings for infringement of the Treaties. According to information received by the questioner the relevant hearings are now being scheduled.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the monopoly enjoyed by chimney-sweeps in the Federal Republic of Germany is a breach of the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in European law; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the monopoly enjoyed by chimney-sweeps in the Federal Republic of Germany is a breach of the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in European law;

| 2. | what stage has now been reached in the review procedure and/or Treaty infringement proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what stage has now been reached in the review procedure and/or Treaty infringement proceedings;

| 3. | when a definitive decision can be expected and in what direction the deliberations of the Directorate-General for the Internal Market in this area are pointing? |
| --- | --- |

3.

when a definitive decision can be expected and in what direction the deliberations of the Directorate-General for the Internal Market in this area are pointing?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission considers that, in particular, the district monopoly granted to master chimney-sweeps, together with various related provisions, infringes the right of establishment pursuant to Article 43 EC and the right to provide services pursuant to Article 49 EC, insofar as this arrangement makes it impossible for German citizens to avail themselves of the services of chimneys-sweeps established in other Member States and prevents chimney-sweeps or heating specialists in other Member States from offering their services in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission considers that, in particular, the district monopoly granted to master chimney-sweeps, together with various related provisions, infringes the right of establishment pursuant to Article 43 EC and the right to provide services pursuant to Article 49 EC, insofar as this arrangement makes it impossible for German citizens to avail themselves of the services of chimneys-sweeps established in other Member States and prevents chimney-sweeps or heating specialists in other Member States from offering their services in Germany.

| 2. | Infringement proceedings were initiated by the transmission of a letter of formal notice to Germany in 2003. The German authorities immediately informed the Commission of their readiness to regularise the situation from the standpoint of EU law. According to the latest available information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement proceedings were initiated by the transmission of a letter of formal notice to Germany in 2003. The German authorities immediately informed the Commission of their readiness to regularise the situation from the standpoint of EU law. According to the latest available information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004.

| 3. | The Commission intends to keep up its contacts with the German authorities and press for a reformulation of the legislation in line with EU law. If this approach fails to produce satisfactory results, the Commission will consider further action under the infringement procedure. This could involve the adoption of a reasoned opinion followed, if appropriate, by a referral to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission intends to keep up its contacts with the German authorities and press for a reformulation of the legislation in line with EU law. If this approach fails to produce satisfactory results, the Commission will consider further action under the infringement procedure. This could involve the adoption of a reasoned opinion followed, if appropriate, by a referral to the Court of Justice.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/573 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/573

---

(2004/C 84 E/0650)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0327/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   County Clare and Objective I of the Structural Fund

I understand from the Commission's previous correspondence that County Clare will remain eligible for Objective 1 in transition until 2006.

However, County Clare will become part of the new North-West constituency (formerly known as Connacht Ulster)in 2004. At that time, can the Commission confirm that the existing Connacht Ulster counties will maintain their Objective 1 status, but County Clare will not share this status?

Does the Commission not anticipate difficulty in this situation whereby it will be the only county in the North-West constituency not enjoying Objective 1 status, even though this county shares the same difficulties and needs as the counties of Connacht Ulster?

Can the Commission confirm whether County Clare will continue to have a different status from the other counties of North-West after 2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The process for determining eligibility for Objective 1 support for the 2000-2006 period is set out in Article 3, paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). The rules mean that, once estabilished, the list of eligible regions remains in force for the entire programming period, 2000-2006.

As the Commission indicated in response to Written Question E-3699/03 (2), the eligibility of County Clare for Objective 1 in transition will not be affected by its inclusion in the North-West constituency for the purpose of elections to the Parliament. The Commission can therefore confirm that the eight counties of Cavan, Donegal, Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon and Sligo remain eligible for Objective 1 until 31 December 2006 while Clare will remain eligible for Objective 1 in transition.

It is not expected that the inclusion of Clare in the North-West constituency will have any impact on the implementation of programmes in the regions eligible for Objective 1 and Objective 1 in transition respectively.

It is too early to speculate on matters of eligibility for support under the Structural Funds. In the third report on economic and social cohesion (adopted by the Commission on 18 February 2004), the Commission proposes to maintain the current Objective 1 eligibility criteria for the new ‘Convergence and competitiveness’ priority.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/574 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/574

---

(2004/C 84 E/0651)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0348/04

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Subject:   Offensive material on websites in Member States

Can the Commission confirm whether it has any jurisdiction over offensive material on websites in Member States? There is an active paedophile organisation in Denmark which suggests that some forms of paedophiliac activity are not dangerous abuse.

Could it also confirm whether there is Community legislation that supersedes national legislation on this type of organisation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the problem of child pornography distributed through the Internet. There is a need for continuous efforts to combat harmful and illegal content on the Internet based on international co-operation amongst governments, particularly law enforcement and judicial authorities, but also between governments and the Internet industry, dedicated hotlines and non-governmental organisations to effectively tackle this horrifying phenomenon.

Primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States, which co-operate internationally in the fight against child pornography on the Internet on the basis of the applicable cooperation mechanisms, either directly, or through the appropriate channels of communications, such as Eurojust, Europol and Interpol.

The European Union has been a forerunner in the fight against illegal and harmful content since 1996, with an approach agreed unanimously by the Parliament and the Council. The Safer Internet Action Plan adopted by the Council and the Parliament in 1999 (1) is a major element in the Commission's activity in this field. It provides funding for a European network of hotlines allowing users to report illegal content, including child pornography.

The EU strategy to combat child pornography also consists of legal instruments and practical measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Council Framework Decision on approximation of laws and sanctions in the field of sexual exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet (2), and the Council Recommendation of September 1998 (3) on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity and the Council Decision of May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (4).

At the beginning of 2004, the ‘International Child Exploitation Database’ feasibility study was finalised. The study was co-funded under the STOP II Programme and run by a project group composed by experts from several Member States. The project group has issued various recommendations, especially recommending that a sophisticated networked international child sexual exploitation image database, building on the fledgling system at Interpol, be urgently required. Such a database, being both technically and legally possible, would have to take into account the different national laws governing images of child sexual exploitation and protection of personal data.

The Commission is not responsible for the actual setting up of such an international database as this is left to the appreciation of the Member States and other involved countries. The Commission is currently supporting an effort made by several Member States, Europol and other third countries under the AGIS programme for funding an implementation study as a concrete follow-up to the above mentioned feasibility study.

It aims at preparing the establishment of a sophisticated networked international database of child-pornography on-line images. The database will be an effective tool for law enforcement in identifying victims and offenders of child sexual exploitation on-line around the world. It will reduce the international duplication of effort and increase international co-operation in achieving these goals.

The Commission believes that the proposed database will have a major impact on the effective policing of this horrendous crime by improving the exchange of information, reducing duplication and significantly raising the analytical capacity.

---

(1)  OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, OJ L 13, 20.1.2004.

(3)  OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(4)  OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/575 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/575

---

(2004/C 84 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0357/04

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Sparsely populated areas in future regional policy

Living and running a business in sparsely populated areas entail higher costs for day-to-day activities. Long distances to work, goods and services, both within the region concerned and other regions, together with inadequate infrastructure mean that the population of such areas have a very high cost of living.

In view of this situation, will the Commission give sparsely populated areas special treatment in its proposal on the new structural funds by granting higher levels of support?

Will the Commission propose that sparsely populated areas receive favourable treatment in terms of the scope for state aid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Under the present Commission Guidelines on national regional aid laying down the State aid rules for regional development purposes for the period 2000-2006 (1), regions characterised with low population density, i.e. regions with less than 12,5 inhabitants per square kilometre (km2), receive a favourable treatment and enjoy an investment aid ceiling of 30 % net, unless they fulfil the 75 % gross domestic product (GDP)/capita test, and have then access to use higher aid intensities. Moreover, in the low population density areas, operating aid in the form of aid to offset additional transport cost is also allowed.

The Commission is currently reviewing its rules on regional State aid for the period after 2006. A decision on the new regional aid guidelines is likely to be adopted in 2005.

With regard to low population density areas, no substantial change as compared to the present situation to the detriment of these areas is envisaged at this stage of reflection. Low population density areas are likely to continue to be eligible for regional aid, including aid to offset additional transport costs that affect the economic activity in the regions concerned. Furthermore, the Commission is aware of the continued depopulation that the most arctic regions are suffering from and is examining whether other types of operating aid can be authorised where such aid is necessary to stop depopulation, provided that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

Moreover, the proposal for the reform of the cohesion policy, as laid down in the third cohesion report, takes into account the situation of regions suffering from geographical handicaps, including sparsely populated areas, thus hindering their accessibility and their development. It is therefore proposed that these territories should actually benefit from an increase in the maximum Community contribution. Furthermore, the allocation of the resources for the regional competitiveness and employment priority (new objective 2) should take account of this by using ‘territorial’ criteria, thus reflecting the relative disadvantage of these regions. Member States should thus ensure that the specificities of these regions are taken into account when targeting the resources within regional programmes.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/576 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/576

---

(2004/C 84 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Ireland's failure to fix penalties for ozone-depleting substances

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of formal notification that it sent to Ireland in October 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/1425, regarding Ireland's failure to indicate what penalties have been fixed for breaches of the EU Regulation on ozone-depleting substances — Regulation 2037/2000 (1) of 29 June 2000 — by the 31 December 2001 deadline?

What action is the Commission now considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

In December 2003, the Irish authorities notified national penalty provisions for the purposes of Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2). This notification is currently under examination.

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/577 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/577

---

(2004/C 84 E/0654)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0373/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of environmental protection legislation

Ansaldo-Breda is an Italian rolling stock manufacturer. In the last few years, its works in Pistoia have been undergoing renovation, as extremely high levels of asbestos had been detected in its buildings and production processes.

However, it has emerged from the preliminary judicial investigations now underway that, in the course of stripping asbestos from the roof, those responsible failed to take the necessary precautions as regards either prior information and warning or the provision of adequate protective equipment, either for Ansaldo-Breda employees or for the employees of the firm in charge of carrying out the renovation work. This infringed the provisions of the Framework Directive 80/1107/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 88/642/EEC (2), and consequently compensation has been agreed, although it is only partial and relates to a shorter period than the time taken by the whole operation.

According to Ansaldo-Breda employees it also seems that, subsequently, some of the broken asbestos panelling was buried in an undeclared dump inside the factory perimeter. The first evidence about the dump emerged some five years ago and was reported to the competent Italian authorities. Nevertheless, the employees claim that, to-date, no measures have been taken to avoid any possible dispersion of asbestos fibres into the air or pollution of the subsoil, nor has any action been taken to ensure the dump is made safe.

Given the high toxicity of asbestos and its considerable chemical and physical resistance, the stripping, removal, disposal and sealing required should be carried out by highly specialised experts in order to safeguard the immediate environment, as prescribed in successive recent Community legislation.

In view of the foregoing:

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that Article 137 of the EC Treaty, and more specifically Directives 89/654/EEC (3) and 89/656/EEC (4), have been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that Article 137 of the EC Treaty, and more specifically Directives 89/654/EEC (3) and 89/656/EEC (4), have been infringed?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that Directive 90/394/EEC (5), as amended by Directives 97/42/EC (6) and 1999/38/EC (7), and Directive 98/24/EC (8) have been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that Directive 90/394/EEC (5), as amended by Directives 97/42/EC (6) and 1999/38/EC (7), and Directive 98/24/EC (8) have been infringed?

| 3. | Does the Commission consider that Directive 87/217/EEC (9) has been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission consider that Directive 87/217/EEC (9) has been infringed?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware of the presence of a dump containing asbestos panels on the site? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware of the presence of a dump containing asbestos panels on the site?

| 5. | What action can be taken to protect the employees? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What action can be taken to protect the employees?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

A.   General comments:

| — | With regard to the health and safety of workers, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (10) sets out general principles concerning the prevention of occupational risks, the protection of safety and health, the elimination of risk and accident factors, the informing, consultation, balanced participation in accordance with national laws and/or practices and training of workers and their representatives, as well as general guidelines for the implementation of the said principles. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the health and safety of workers, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (10) sets out general principles concerning the prevention of occupational risks, the protection of safety and health, the elimination of risk and accident factors, the informing, consultation, balanced participation in accordance with national laws and/or practices and training of workers and their representatives, as well as general guidelines for the implementation of the said principles.

| — | In particular, the exposure of workers to asbestos is currently governed by Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (11). The aim of the Directive is the protection of workers against risks to their health, including the prevention of such risks, arising or likely to arise from exposure to asbestos at work. It lays down limit values and other specific requirements, such as the employer's obligation to provide workers with adequate information concerning the risks to health from exposure to asbestos, the precautions to be taken and the need to provide workers with the appropriate respiratory equipment and other personal protective equipment in certain circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

—

In particular, the exposure of workers to asbestos is currently governed by Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (11). The aim of the Directive is the protection of workers against risks to their health, including the prevention of such risks, arising or likely to arise from exposure to asbestos at work. It lays down limit values and other specific requirements, such as the employer's obligation to provide workers with adequate information concerning the risks to health from exposure to asbestos, the precautions to be taken and the need to provide workers with the appropriate respiratory equipment and other personal protective equipment in certain circumstances.

| — | Moreover, several of the individual Directives provided for in Directive 89/391/EEC, such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member, also apply in relation to protection of the health and safety of workers, e.g. 89/654/EEC (12), 89/656/EEC (13), 90/394/EEC (14) and 98/24/EC (15) (which repeals Directives 80/1107/EEC and 88/642/EEC). |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, several of the individual Directives provided for in Directive 89/391/EEC, such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member, also apply in relation to protection of the health and safety of workers, e.g. 89/654/EEC (12), 89/656/EEC (13), 90/394/EEC (14) and 98/24/EC (15) (which repeals Directives 80/1107/EEC and 88/642/EEC).

| — | These Directives do not affect the right of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions to ensure greater protection for workers. |
| --- | --- |

—

These Directives do not affect the right of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions to ensure greater protection for workers.

| — | It is the responsibility of each Member State to transpose and implement the above Directives. It is primarily the responsibility of the relevant national authorities in Italy to ensure that the Directives are properly applied and to make provision in national legislation for administrative and judicial redress. However, if there is evidence to show that national legislation transposing the Community Directives is not being applied, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, could invoke the provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 226. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is the responsibility of each Member State to transpose and implement the above Directives. It is primarily the responsibility of the relevant national authorities in Italy to ensure that the Directives are properly applied and to make provision in national legislation for administrative and judicial redress. However, if there is evidence to show that national legislation transposing the Community Directives is not being applied, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, could invoke the provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 226.

B.   Specific answers to the Honourable Member's five questions:

| 1. and 2. | The information given by the Honourable Member concerns the application in practice of Italian legislation transposing the Directives mentioned in this written question. The monitoring and supervision of its application are primarily the responsibility of the Italian authorities. The Commission does not have sufficient information to establish whether these Directives have been infringed. However, it will take the necessary steps to obtain more detailed information and to ensure, within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaty, that Community law is complied with. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The information given by the Honourable Member concerns the application in practice of Italian legislation transposing the Directives mentioned in this written question. The monitoring and supervision of its application are primarily the responsibility of the Italian authorities. The Commission does not have sufficient information to establish whether these Directives have been infringed. However, it will take the necessary steps to obtain more detailed information and to ensure, within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaty, that Community law is complied with.

| 3. and 4. | As regards the alleged illegal asbestos landfill, a breach of EC waste legislation could be envisaged, and in particular of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, on waste (16), as amended, and of Article 2 of Directive 91/689/EEC, on hazardous waste (17).
  As the Commission is not aware of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member, it will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information and to ensure, within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, that Community law is complied with.
  Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it will not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure compliance with the relevant Community law.
  Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos mainly addresses the control of pollution from the production of raw asbestos and the working of products containing asbestos. It contains only a few general provisions related to the transport and disposal of waste containing asbestos. On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to assess with certainty whether there has been a breach of this Directive. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

As regards the alleged illegal asbestos landfill, a breach of EC waste legislation could be envisaged, and in particular of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, on waste (16), as amended, and of Article 2 of Directive 91/689/EEC, on hazardous waste (17).

As the Commission is not aware of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member, it will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information and to ensure, within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, that Community law is complied with.

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it will not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure compliance with the relevant Community law.

Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos mainly addresses the control of pollution from the production of raw asbestos and the working of products containing asbestos. It contains only a few general provisions related to the transport and disposal of waste containing asbestos. On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to assess with certainty whether there has been a breach of this Directive.

| 5. | Action to be taken to protect employees' rights, in particular the right to compensation, comes under the administrative and judicial redress procedures established by Italian national law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Action to be taken to protect employees' rights, in particular the right to compensation, comes under the administrative and judicial redress procedures established by Italian national law.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 3.12.1980, p. 8.

(2)  OJ L 356, 24.12.1988, p. 74.

(3)  OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

(5)  OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1.

(6)  OJ L 179, 8.7.1997, p. 4.

(7)  OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 66.

(8)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.

(9)  OJ L 85, 28.3.1987, p. 40.

(10)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(11)  OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.

(12)  OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(13)  OJ L 59, 6.3.1991.

(14)  OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(15)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(16)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(17)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/579 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/579

---

(2004/C 84 E/0655)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/04

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Olivier Dupuis (Nl), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI) and Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

On 25 January the Protocol for the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights entered into force. This is a major development in the history of the international protection of human rights. Currently, 15 African states are subject to the jurisdiction of this new court. Some of them are troubled by widespread violations of human rights and civil strife, such as Algeria, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire and Rwanda. Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, and others, are expected to ratify soon.

As in the erstwhile European human rights system, and, as in the case of the current system for the Americas, the establishment of the African Court will not abolish the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Rather, the Court will complement the Commission. In tandem, they can alter the landscape of accountable government in Africa. Unlike the case of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, which has existed since 1987, the judgments of the Court will be legally binding and thus enforceable in courts of law across Africa. Moreover, in the case of those countries who have accepted to do so, individuals will be able to approach the Court directly. This is a not-to-be-missed opportunity to strengthen the effectiveness of the African human rights regime and promote democracy in that continent.

| 1. | What is the Commission doing, or planning to do, to facilitate the process of the establishment of the African Court of Human and Peoples' rights, and promote widespread ratification in the African continent? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission doing, or planning to do, to facilitate the process of the establishment of the African Court of Human and Peoples' rights, and promote widespread ratification in the African continent?

| 2. | Is the Commission going to make available funds to this end, and, if so, through what channels and procedures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission going to make available funds to this end, and, if so, through what channels and procedures?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. | The coming into force of the protocol establishing the African Court on Human and People's Rights indeed paves the way for the continent's first ever judicial institution dedicated to protecting basic human rights. The Commission has restated several times its support for the launching of the Court as an institution that could make a significant contribution in safeguarding and ensuring observance of human rights throughout Africa as well as in promoting democracy, the rule of law and good governance.
  In the opinion of the Commission, the establishment of the Court witnesses a new political environment which is more conducive for a bold and comprehensive action of the new African Union (AU) and its elected Commission in democracy, governance and human rights. The definition by Africans of instruments and monitoring instruments (African Peer Review Mechanism, Conference on Stability, Security and Development Cooperation in Africa) and institutions (Commission, Pan African Parliament, Court on Human and People's Rights) for the entire continent reflects this commitment and strong ownership.
  The Commission has also congratulated the AU for obtaining the required number of ratifications. However, the Commission does not intend to lobby for ratifying a Protocol it is not directly legally involved in. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The coming into force of the protocol establishing the African Court on Human and People's Rights indeed paves the way for the continent's first ever judicial institution dedicated to protecting basic human rights. The Commission has restated several times its support for the launching of the Court as an institution that could make a significant contribution in safeguarding and ensuring observance of human rights throughout Africa as well as in promoting democracy, the rule of law and good governance.

In the opinion of the Commission, the establishment of the Court witnesses a new political environment which is more conducive for a bold and comprehensive action of the new African Union (AU) and its elected Commission in democracy, governance and human rights. The definition by Africans of instruments and monitoring instruments (African Peer Review Mechanism, Conference on Stability, Security and Development Cooperation in Africa) and institutions (Commission, Pan African Parliament, Court on Human and People's Rights) for the entire continent reflects this commitment and strong ownership.

The Commission has also congratulated the AU for obtaining the required number of ratifications. However, the Commission does not intend to lobby for ratifying a Protocol it is not directly legally involved in.

| 2. | The Commission decided to support the AU governance agenda through a comprehensive programme of EUR 1,9 million (European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights budget line) instead of supporting certain ‘islands of effectiveness’ within that area. This project aims at improving the overall capacity of the AU to develop policy initiatives and effective actions towards Member States in relation to three closely inter-related priority themes: (i) democratisation processes with a focus on strengthening the capacity of the AU to observe and monitor elections; (ii) governance with a focus on improving the monitoring capacity of the AU; on enhancing civil society participation and on mainstreaming gender; (iii) human rights with a focus on improving the capacity of the AU and National Human Rights Institutions to advance human rights, including in complex emergency situations.
  This programme should be seen as a first step. At the last EU-Africa troika meeting at senior officials level (Dublin, 17-18 February 2004), the Commission repeated it would be ready to consider any further request for funding in the area of governance, human rights and democracy. The Court, as a key institution for ensuring human rights in Africa, could be part of such future support. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission decided to support the AU governance agenda through a comprehensive programme of EUR 1,9 million (European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights budget line) instead of supporting certain ‘islands of effectiveness’ within that area. This project aims at improving the overall capacity of the AU to develop policy initiatives and effective actions towards Member States in relation to three closely inter-related priority themes: (i) democratisation processes with a focus on strengthening the capacity of the AU to observe and monitor elections; (ii) governance with a focus on improving the monitoring capacity of the AU; on enhancing civil society participation and on mainstreaming gender; (iii) human rights with a focus on improving the capacity of the AU and National Human Rights Institutions to advance human rights, including in complex emergency situations.

This programme should be seen as a first step. At the last EU-Africa troika meeting at senior officials level (Dublin, 17-18 February 2004), the Commission repeated it would be ready to consider any further request for funding in the area of governance, human rights and democracy. The Court, as a key institution for ensuring human rights in Africa, could be part of such future support.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/580 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/580

---

(2004/C 84 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/04

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Measures against hunger in the EU

The alarming increase in the numbers of people suffering from hunger in Europe (estimated at 100 million European citizens in the 25-Member Union), alongside the disappearance of intervention stocks as a result of the new CAP guidelines, is a cause for real alarm. The CAP is apparently no longer capable of ensuring, as laid down in the Treaties, adequate supplies for all its citizens, and particularly the most destitute.

At the same time, it appears that all the NGOs and solidarity associations working on a daily basis with the poorest members of European society, are unable to take action and fulfil their role of enhancing social and human cohesion.

Given this situation, does the Commission, which was the originator of the European Programme for Aid to the Destitute (EPAD), envisage modifying — and within what time frame — Regulation (EEC) 3149/92 (1) which would both ensure the existence of safeguard stocks, extend the barter practices which have proved both simple and effective, facilitate market access where necessary, and include these associations in assessing the needs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

We have always been alert to the need to keep the detailed rules of the scheme for aiding the most deprived persons in the Community adapted to changing circumstances and have amended them on several occasions, introducing in particular two major changes to provide greater flexibility that the Honourable Member refers to, i.e. the possibility of buying food products on the market that are temporarily unavailable from intervention and, very recently, the practice of exchanging intervention stocks for other food products.

We are aware that the scheme provides one of the sources of supply to many associations active in this field. These are consulted both by the Member States when they draw up their annual plan requests and by the Commission at meetings held at least once a year.

We will continue to monitor the changing environment of the scheme and will not fail to adjust the rules as necessary. We are considering the measure's future in the face of the considerable reduction in public stocks — even the disappearance of stocks of some products such as beef and olive oil — that is one of the intended results of ongoing reform of the common agricultural policy.

---

(1)  OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/581 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/581

---

(2004/C 84 E/0657)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Child slavery networks

Does the Commission believe that the appalling phenomenon of the enslavement of children in subSaharan African countries could be affecting the EU? Is the Commission taking any measures with regard to those African countries where, according to some NGOs, 200 000 children are engaged in slave labour?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14. April 2004)

The Commission fully supports the strong stance which the EU has taken against slavery. That stance is illustrated by the EU's statement on the rights of the child delivered to the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in 2003, in which the EU expressed alarm at the increase in the worst forms of child labour, including all forms of slavery (as documented, ‘inter alia’, in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Global Report for 2002, which estimated the number of children in the worst forms of labour at 179 million and those in slavery at 8,4 million). Moreover, the resolution tabled by the EU on the rights of the child at the 59th UNCHR also included a call to States to take action to combat child labour and to eliminate its worst forms immediately.

The EU's commitment to combating slavery is further reflected in Article 5 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights, which prohibits slavery and forced labour, and in the support articulated by the EU for international instruments to combat slavery-related activities, including the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and ILO Conventions 29, 105, 138 and 182.

In the specific context of Africa, an action plan against trafficking in human beings has been elaborated for agreement in the context of the EU-Africa Dialogue. Moreover, support has been extended through the EU budget to address the issue of child slavery. A recent example is the allocation of EUR 1 252 375 to Alisei under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) to combat child trafficking, modern forms of slavery and the exploitation of minors in Gabon, Benin, Togo and Nigeria. In addition, the EIDHR programming update for 2004 (adopted by Commission Decision of 1 December 2003) identifies support for the establishment of networks in Western Africa to fight against the trafficking of human beings, in particular women and children. Further pertinent measures taken by the Commission include a wide range of projects funded under the EU budget to address the plight of children affected by armed conflict, as set out in the recent overview prepared by the Commission, as an initial follow-up to the adoption of the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict in December 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/582

---

(2004/C 84 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Secret detention in the USA of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities because their visa is not in order

Has the Commission taken any political or humanitarian steps in view of arrests of this kind in the USA, which have even been ratified by the Supreme Court, and affect 700 individuals, against whom the sole existing charge is that they have infringed the immigration laws of the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Terrorism represents a fundamental attack to the values of the European Union laid down in Articles 6 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union, namely the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and the rule of law as essential elements of EU policy.

The Commission supports bringing suspected terrorists to justice and reaffirms that terrorism represents a threat to security in Europe and beyond.

However, the Commission also emphasizes its conviction that the fight against terrorism must fully respect human rights and the rule of law.

The Commission is not in a position to ascertain whether the charges leading to the arrests mentioned by the Honourable Member, as reported by the media, were solely based on alleged violations of any particular type of internal United States laws.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/582

---

(2004/C 84 E/0659)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Crossborder hospital in La Cerdanya

Recently, the Catalan and French health authorities obtained funding from the Interreg programme to investigate the viability and construction costs of a crossborder hospital in Puigcerdà, in La Cerdanya, a valley on the Franco-Spanish border.

Could the Commission tell me what stage has been reached with regard to the possible building of this crossborder hospital, which, should it go ahead, would help both to deepen the reality of European citizenship and improve the levels of healthcare provision available to the area's inhabitants?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Under the France-Spain Interreg III A programme EUR 45 000 was granted from the European Regional Development Fund for the study on the viability of creating a cross-border hospital at La Cerdanya. Carried out by the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council (project leader) and the Generalitat de Catalunya, it is now in the final stages.

At the moment therefore we await the study's findings. We favour part-financing of this type of project that can have a real lever effect on the quality of the daily life of border zone populations. In the case in point the question to be answered by the study is whether health resources and infrastructure can feasibly be pooled to the benefit of geographically adjacent populations.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/583 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/583

---

(2004/C 84 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject:   Goose hunting in Zeeland

The province of Zeeland has granted an exemption to the ban on hunting geese. The exemption applies to areas that do not fall within the scope of the Birds Directive, with a buffer zone of 200 to 700 metres in operation. The area is home to a number of goose varieties that are listed in Annexe II/2 of the Birds Directive, one of them being the Brent goose (Branta bernicla). The Netherlands is not listed as a Member State that can give permission for hunting Brent geese under Article 7(3). The same goes for the Pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) and the Greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), which are also frequently in residence in Zeeland. Exceptions to the ban on hunting are only allowed under Article 9(1)(a) if there is no other possible solution to serious problems such as major damage to crops. In the regional press the exemption from the hunting ban is described as an economy measure: the provincial government does not wish to spend money on repairing the damage caused by geese.

| 1. | Is the payment of compensation to farmers for damage to crops a satisfactory solution within the meaning of Article 9(1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the payment of compensation to farmers for damage to crops a satisfactory solution within the meaning of Article 9(1)?

| 2. | In the opinion of the Commission, does the exemption from the hunting ban violate the Birds Directive? If so, what steps will the Commission take? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the opinion of the Commission, does the exemption from the hunting ban violate the Birds Directive? If so, what steps will the Commission take?

| 3. | Are the buffer zones that have been established sufficiently large to provide protection for the birds that live in the protected areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the buffer zones that have been established sufficiently large to provide protection for the birds that live in the protected areas?

| 4. | Can the Commission investigate the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of the possibility of obtaining subsidies for agricultural environment management? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission investigate the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of the possibility of obtaining subsidies for agricultural environment management?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus), the white-fronted goose (Anser Albifrons) and the brent goose (Branta bernicla) which are all mentioned in Annex II/2 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). According to Article 7(3) of the Directive, the species referred to in Annex II/2 may be hunted only in the Member States in respect of which they are indicated. Annex II/2 indicates that the Netherlands may authorise the hunting of the Anser albifrons.

As far as the other two species are concerned, the information from the Honourable Member suggests that derogations from the prohibiton to hunt these species have been granted by the Netherlands for reasons related to crop damage caused by birds. In principle, it is possible for the Netherlands, on the basis of Article 9(1) (a) of the Directive, to validly derogate from the provisions of Article 7 in order ‘to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’.

Pursuant to Article 9(3) and (4) of the Directive, the Netherlands is obliged to provide the Commission regularly with a report on the implementation of Article 9. The report on the derogations for 2003 has not yet been received by the Commission and is not due until the end of 2004. In these circumstances, it is not evident that the Netherlands is necessarily in breach of the Directive. The Commission will examine the report carefully once it has been received and, if necessary, take appropriate steps to ensure that the derogations are not incompatible with the Directive. The Commission would like to emphasise that the Member States must comply with the provisions of Article 9 as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The Court ruled, for example, that a derogation from the general prohibition on hunting in Article 7 is only allowed by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2) (see e.g. case C-118/94, WWF, judgement of 7 March 1996).

As regards the agri-environment expenditure, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that at present the national rural development plan for the Netherlands does not contain any specific agri-environmental measure aimed at the protection of the above-mentioned geese. With the amendment 2002 to the Rural Development Plan, that was sent on 2 April 2002, the Netherlands aimed to introduce the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’. These packages protect the brent geese and the greater white-fronted geese. The protection of the pink-footed goose is not included. However, by letter of 8 July 2003 the Commission was informed on the withdrawal of the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’ from the amendment 2002. As amendments to the Rural Development Plan are negotiated at bilateral level between the Commission and the Member State, it is not possible for the Commission to assess the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of its possibilities to obtain subsidies for agricultural environment management.

If applicable, subsidies for agricultural environment management would most probably be granted under the Dutch Rural Development Plan 2000-2006; the Structural Funds Objective 2 Programme for South-Netherlands, which also covers part of the Zeeland province, does not appear to be an appropriate framework for such measures.

In the framework of the sub-programme for the ‘Euregio Scheidemond’ under the current Interreg ΠΙΑ programme in favour of the ‘Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland’ a cross-border project ‘Organic farming’ (‘Grensoverschijdend biologisch boeren’) with two partners from Zeeland is being financed.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/584 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/584

---

(2004/C 84 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Fluoridation of drinking water

Could the Commission say why the new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)) continue to allows the addition to public water supplies of a ‘priority hazardous substance’ prohibited by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (2)), hexafluorosilicic acid, listed in the EC Dangerous Substances Directive, a persistent, bioaccumulative pollutant and toxic chemical, in obvious violation of its own directives, including Article 4(2) which prohibits Member States from adopting measures leading ‘to any increase in the pollution of waters used for the production of drinking water’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Concerning dangerous substances, the Council and the Parliament have adopted a list of 33 substances or groups of substances of which 11 have been classified as ‘priority hazardous’, 14 as ‘priorit’ which are under review and eight not ‘priority hazardous’. For the moment, hexafluorosilicic acid is not covered by Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy, and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (3).

For Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the approach followed in the Council Directive has been to set limit values, which should not be exceeded, for a series of substances including fluoride; the maximum permitted levels have been fixed on the basis of available scientific knowledge in order to protect human health. The choice of the means to bring the quality of the drinking water in line with the Community legislation is left to the Member States themselves.

The list of parameters of the Directive has been limited to those which are of most importance for the quality of drinking water in the Community. The substances on the list are not the only substances which could present a risk or even a potential threat to human health if present in drinking water. However, to include all potential contaminants without regard to how likely or unlikely their presence may be would have created an unworkable Directive. This would have implied disproportionate monitoring obligations and very little gain in safety.

---

(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(2)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/585 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/585

---

(2004/C 84 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal

Brax Portuguesa, clothes-making factory, Ltd., situated in Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia, has just closed its doors, throwing 450 workers on the dole. The Brax multinational, funded by German capital, has already opened new factories in Romania and other candidate countries. The documentation which was handed out to the Portuguese workers reveal that the company states that it has not paid salaries for the last two months, and does not intend to pay them in subsequent months. It should be noted that the company used Portuguese workers from Brax Portuguesa to train Romanian workers. Now it is sacking the former, quite illegally and unacceptably, although it is retaining the factory building and other significant property next to the factory. Brax Portuguesa obtained Community funding, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in Romania and elsewhere.

The Commission:

| 1. | Is it going to demand that the Brax Group reimburse the Community funding it received, if it persists in closing down its Portuguese operations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it going to demand that the Brax Group reimburse the Community funding it received, if it persists in closing down its Portuguese operations?

| 2. | Is it going to refuse to give the Brax Group any further Community funding, whatever country it is in, if it keeps the Portuguese factory shut? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it going to refuse to give the Brax Group any further Community funding, whatever country it is in, if it keeps the Portuguese factory shut?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the provisions in force with regard to the obligations of enterprises which have benefited from Community funding are as follows:

| — | For the period covered by the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks (CSF), the following provisions apply in respect of the Structural Funds:






  — | firstly the Commission has laid down provisions in the Guidelines on national regional aid (1998) which oblige beneficiaries of aid to maintain any funded investment for a period of five years. The Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) holds that the period of five years for maintaining the investment laid down in point 4.10 of the guidelines starts when the investment for which the aid is granted has been completed, i.e. from the moment when the investment is used in the enterprise; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

For the period covered by the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks (CSF), the following provisions apply in respect of the Structural Funds:

—

firstly the Commission has laid down provisions in the Guidelines on national regional aid (1998) which oblige beneficiaries of aid to maintain any funded investment for a period of five years. The Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) holds that the period of five years for maintaining the investment laid down in point 4.10 of the guidelines starts when the investment for which the aid is granted has been completed, i.e. from the moment when the investment is used in the enterprise;

| — | secondly, and by the same token, the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds (1999) provides that the Fund's funding of productive activities is dependent on the activities not relocating within five years of the funding decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, and by the same token, the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds (1999) provides that the Fund's funding of productive activities is dependent on the activities not relocating within five years of the funding decision;

| — | thirdly, major projects (i.e. valued at over EUR 50 million) can be cofinanced under a European regional development fund (ERDF) programme only if a specific application is made to the Commission and the Member States fill in a questionnaire which includes a question on the risk of relocation. The Commission take this into account when deciding on the level of ERDF cofunding (which can be up to 35 % in Objective 1 regions) to be granted or, as the case may be, refused. |
| --- | --- |

—

thirdly, major projects (i.e. valued at over EUR 50 million) can be cofinanced under a European regional development fund (ERDF) programme only if a specific application is made to the Commission and the Member States fill in a questionnaire which includes a question on the risk of relocation. The Commission take this into account when deciding on the level of ERDF cofunding (which can be up to 35 % in Objective 1 regions) to be granted or, as the case may be, refused.

| — | With regard to the period covered by the 1994-1999 CSF, the five-year rule entered into force only in 1998. It should, however, be borne in mind that Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) was already in force, Article 24 of which provides for aid to be reduced or cancelled if scrutiny of an operation confirms the existence of an irregularity or a major change which affects the nature or conditions of implementation of the operation or measure and for which the Commission's approval has not been requested. The Commission must verify this under the terms of its partnership with the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the period covered by the 1994-1999 CSF, the five-year rule entered into force only in 1998. It should, however, be borne in mind that Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) was already in force, Article 24 of which provides for aid to be reduced or cancelled if scrutiny of an operation confirms the existence of an irregularity or a major change which affects the nature or conditions of implementation of the operation or measure and for which the Commission's approval has not been requested. The Commission must verify this under the terms of its partnership with the Member State.

| — | The rules for the current period of programming will apply to the accession countries when they join the Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The rules for the current period of programming will apply to the accession countries when they join the Union.

| — | In any event, it is up to the Member State to take any legal action on the basis of the agreements entered into with the enterprise when the aid was granted. Therefore, if a beneficiary has not complied with the Community rules on State aid, it must reimburse the authorities which granted the aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, it is up to the Member State to take any legal action on the basis of the agreements entered into with the enterprise when the aid was granted. Therefore, if a beneficiary has not complied with the Community rules on State aid, it must reimburse the authorities which granted the aid.

| — | As the Member State's partner, the Commission has already drawn its attention to the case specifically alluded to by the Honourable Member so that it can ascertain whether the enterprise has fulfilled its obligations. |
| --- | --- |

—

As the Member State's partner, the Commission has already drawn its attention to the case specifically alluded to by the Honourable Member so that it can ascertain whether the enterprise has fulfilled its obligations.

| — | If an enterprise relocates from one region to another in the same country, from one Member State to another or from a Member State to an accession country whilst complying with the rules and regulations in force, neither the Commission nor the Member State have the right to refuse it a grant in the place of relocation if it meets the requirements for aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

If an enterprise relocates from one region to another in the same country, from one Member State to another or from a Member State to an accession country whilst complying with the rules and regulations in force, neither the Commission nor the Member State have the right to refuse it a grant in the place of relocation if it meets the requirements for aid.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/587 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/587

---

(2004/C 84 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Protecting wickerwork craftsmen in the Madeira Autonomous Region

Wickerwork weaving is a traditional activity of the Madeira Autonomous Region, and an integral part of the economy of the Atlantic islands of Madeira and Porto Santo, and of their culture.

Between the production of wicker and its weaving, the industry involves hundreds of jobs, giving it considerable economic weight in certain areas; many families are dependent on it. Competition from products coming from third countries, above all Asia, has thrown the industry into deep crisis, and if there are no in-depth changes, it runs the risk of folding completely, entailing the disappearance of part of the culture of the people who settled in these islands over 500 years ago.

To date, there are no measures to protect this specific ultra-peripheral regional activity. The action taken so far is not sufficiently far-reaching for this sector, neither as regards wicker growing and harvesting nor wicker weaving and marketing. What are needed are specific support programmes on an altogether different scale, encouraging the modernisation of wicker growing and treating techniques, and a proper study in the field of renewing and updating the products designed for the market, alongside measures to encourage the promotion of these products.

Within the existing programmes, what measures could be considered with a view to supporting this regional craft work sector, and what possibilities exist for providing subsidies which would ensure its survival and modernisation as an EU craft industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view of the importance of the economic and cultural role of traditional craftwork, including wicker weaving in Madeira.

Aware of the need to capitalise on craft product quality, the Commission has mounted a study surveying the craft arts in Europe that includes a set of recommendations on strategies to promote craft products, ranging from preserving and transferring know-how to facilitating access to national and international markets through expansion of e-commerce.

The final report can be found on the website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/rarecrafts.htm).

Accordingly the operational programme for Madeira (Popram III) includes various actions to protect and develop craftwork in ‘Measure 2.3: Competitiveness and economic efficiency’. The Honourable Member's attention is drawn in particular to that included in the programme complement as Action 2.3.2.: Dynamising the business environment' providing for the funding of projects capitalising on specific regional craft products such as tapestry, embroidery and wickerwork.

In addition to these measures for craft trades, wicker growing in Madeira also benefits under the POSEI specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 (1).

The Commission funded a study entitled ‘Support for regional craft trades’ to examine the opportunities for supporting and revitalising these. A draft programme ‘Restructuring regional craft trades’ was then drawn up for the purpose of implementing new measures to dynamise and expand tapestry, embroidery and wickerwork production.

Under the Euromed Heritage II framework programme the Commission has also provided funding for the Prodecom project aimed at mobilising the potential of the Euro-Mediterranean artistic and craft heritage by introduction of a ‘local culture product’ label intended to make it easier for the quality and originality of craft products to be recognised. In the longer term this initiative should facilitate the marketing of craft products in Europe and worldwide. The project is being coordinated by the Chambre des Beaux Arts de Méditerranée (2).

Finally, a specific aid scheme is currently being prepared for measures to promote the marketing of craft products.

The Commission continues to devote attention to this subject and is thinking of carrying out preparatory work to evaluate the feasibility of a Community instrument for promoting distinctive products — other than agricultural products — made by small European enterprises, including the traditional products of the outermost regions that are an integral part of Europe's cultural heritage and economically speaking are an invaluable asset to their producers (mainly small businesses and micro-enterprises) and local communities.

The European Social Fund (ESF) is providing EUR 99 075 446 in assistance for the Popram III programme under CSF III (2000-2006) (Measure 1.5 — Human Resource Skills and Social Equality). The assistance in Madeira is intended to help improve the population's qualification level and promote employment, employability, equal opportunities and social integration: support for young people in obtaining qualifications, both inside and outside the education system, training for those already in employment, retraining and reintegration for the unemployed, local employment expansion schemes etc.

Community aid for wickerwork producers falls within this overall human resource development framework for the Madeira Autonomous Region. It is up to the national authorities to define specific policies for the various areas of activity. Theoretically all types of action open to ESF assistance could be aided under the programme but the national authorities have set selection criteria for Popram III that give priority to training plans proposed by businesses in the sector that are undergoing restructuring and to applications submitted under Action 1.5.3 — Training for those in employment.

---

(1)  OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

(2)  59, rue Cambronne, 75015 Paris: ch.beaux.arts@wanadoo.fr

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/588 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/588

---

(2004/C 84 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/04

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Timetable for processing rural development projects

The official processing of rural development and enterprise projects often takes a very long time, in some cases more than a year. This causes considerable problems to project coordinators. If the processing of project applications and payment applications takes several months, projects become very difficult to manage and at the same time substantial financial losses are incurred. The flow of project ideas from the grass roots also tends to dry up because project planning is felt to be too slow and bureaucratic. If the processing of business projects takes more than a year it is possible that an entire project may become pointless.

This issue concerns horizontal rural development projects and projects in Objective 1 regions. The question is, has the Commission set a time limit for the period between submission of an application concerning a rural development project and a decision on the project? Project coordinators are set deadlines, but do any apply to the authorities? Is the Commission aware of differences in the speed with which projects are processed in different countries? It would be useful to know in order to ascertain whether speed of processing affects the results achieved in projects.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the long processing times of the Finnish rural development projects via the annual implementation reports of the programmes, evaluation reports and the work of the monitoring committees.

For example, in the mid-term evaluations carried out for Objective 1 programmes, the following criticisms were presented:

| — | The administration of the Structural Funds programmes in Finland has been rather heavy throughout the membership period and it has received a lot of criticism. Although new (national) legislation on Structural Funds has in many cases clarified competence relationships between different authorities, the heavy administrative pattern still creates unreasonable delays in starting the projects and in payment procedures. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administration of the Structural Funds programmes in Finland has been rather heavy throughout the membership period and it has received a lot of criticism. Although new (national) legislation on Structural Funds has in many cases clarified competence relationships between different authorities, the heavy administrative pattern still creates unreasonable delays in starting the projects and in payment procedures.

| — | These problems are mainly related to programme structure, that is to say, variously, to different preparation processes of national and regional co-financers (EED-Centre, Provincial governments, County governments), to the decision making timetable and to different interpretation and application of the norms that guide the activities. Financial envelopes per county that hinder the optimal focusing of resources (confer different regional demand and supply that currently do not match properly) bring additional complexity. |
| --- | --- |

—

These problems are mainly related to programme structure, that is to say, variously, to different preparation processes of national and regional co-financers (EED-Centre, Provincial governments, County governments), to the decision making timetable and to different interpretation and application of the norms that guide the activities. Financial envelopes per county that hinder the optimal focusing of resources (confer different regional demand and supply that currently do not match properly) bring additional complexity.

| — | Similar criticism was also presented in the context of mid-term evaluations of the mini Regional Development Programme and Leader+ programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

Similar criticism was also presented in the context of mid-term evaluations of the mini Regional Development Programme and Leader+ programme.

| — | The delays in processing times of applications have been discussed in various monitoring committees, as well as at the initiative of the Commission representatives, but no actual decisions to correct the situation have been made. The responsibility lies with the monitoring committees, members of which represent different authorities and economic and social partners. |
| --- | --- |

—

The delays in processing times of applications have been discussed in various monitoring committees, as well as at the initiative of the Commission representatives, but no actual decisions to correct the situation have been made. The responsibility lies with the monitoring committees, members of which represent different authorities and economic and social partners.

| — | The annual implementation reports of the Structural Fund programmes to be submitted to the Commission should include a summary of any significant problems encountered in managing the assistance and any measures taken. On the basis of these reports the Commission and the management authority shall review the activities and main outcomes of the previous year. For example, in the context of 2002 annual review meeting of the Leader+ programme, the Commission drew the attention to the need to reduce delays in processing and payment times and the situation has somewhat improved. |
| --- | --- |

—

The annual implementation reports of the Structural Fund programmes to be submitted to the Commission should include a summary of any significant problems encountered in managing the assistance and any measures taken. On the basis of these reports the Commission and the management authority shall review the activities and main outcomes of the previous year. For example, in the context of 2002 annual review meeting of the Leader+ programme, the Commission drew the attention to the need to reduce delays in processing and payment times and the situation has somewhat improved.

| — | On the basis of the above, the Commission refers to the fact that the delays in processing of the applications are mainly due to fragmented national administration systems and that the main responsibility lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the basis of the above, the Commission refers to the fact that the delays in processing of the applications are mainly due to fragmented national administration systems and that the main responsibility lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes.

| — | There are no explicit rules for the national processing times of the applications or payment requests in the Community legislation concerning Structural Funds or rural development although, Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) stipulates that the national paying authority shall ensure that final beneficiaries receive payment of their contribution from the Funds as quickly as possible and in full. |
| --- | --- |

—

There are no explicit rules for the national processing times of the applications or payment requests in the Community legislation concerning Structural Funds or rural development although, Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) stipulates that the national paying authority shall ensure that final beneficiaries receive payment of their contribution from the Funds as quickly as possible and in full.

| — | Article 3 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation stipulates that the Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of assistance. It may, in any event, propose to the managing authority any adjustment or review of the assistance likely to improve the management of the assistance, including in respect of financial management. The representatives of the Commission are participating in the work of the Monitoring Committees in an advisory capacity. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 3 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation stipulates that the Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of assistance. It may, in any event, propose to the managing authority any adjustment or review of the assistance likely to improve the management of the assistance, including in respect of financial management. The representatives of the Commission are participating in the work of the Monitoring Committees in an advisory capacity.

| — | Although the Commission refers that the long processing time of the applications is mainly due to national administration systems and that the main responsibility to remedy the situation lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes, it is the intention of the Commission to bring the issue up in the next annual review meetings between the Commission and the Member State, at the meetings of the respective monitoring committees as well as at other occasions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Although the Commission refers that the long processing time of the applications is mainly due to national administration systems and that the main responsibility to remedy the situation lies with the managing authorities of the Member State and with the monitoring committees of the programmes, it is the intention of the Commission to bring the issue up in the next annual review meetings between the Commission and the Member State, at the meetings of the respective monitoring committees as well as at other occasions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/590 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/590

---

(2004/C 84 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   Compliance with legislation on health and safety at work

On 26 January 2004, I made an official visit to six companies in Emmen in the province of Drenthe, Netherlands. There I spoke to employees and works councils about the implications of the European Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) for Netherlands law, as well as the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions. It emerged from these discussions that the Law on Working Conditions contravenes European legislation on safety, health and welfare services, according to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 22 May 2003. The Netherlands Law on Working Conditions compels companies to enlist external safety, health and welfare services. The European Directive states that competent personnel should first be sought from within the company.

| 1. | Do companies now have to comply with the judgment of the Court or with the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do companies now have to comply with the judgment of the Court or with the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions?

| 2. | Are discussions ongoing with the Netherlands Government to amend the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions as soon as possible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are discussions ongoing with the Netherlands Government to amend the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

| 1. | Article 228 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to fulfil their obligations resulting from Court of Justice judgments and to take any necessary measures for this purpose.
  According to consistent case-law, the importance of immediate and uniform application of Community law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (judgment of 4 July 2000, Commission v. Greece, C-387/97, ECR p. I-5047, paragraph 82).
  However, this does not prevent companies from contacting the competent national authorities in the meantime, where appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 228 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to fulfil their obligations resulting from Court of Justice judgments and to take any necessary measures for this purpose.

According to consistent case-law, the importance of immediate and uniform application of Community law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (judgment of 4 July 2000, Commission v. Greece, C-387/97, ECR p. I-5047, paragraph 82).

However, this does not prevent companies from contacting the competent national authorities in the meantime, where appropriate.

| 2. | As the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not yet adopted the necessary provisions to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 22 May 2003 in case C-441/01, the Commission has started infringement proceedings under Article 228 of the EC Treaty and will pursue those proceedings until the Kingdom of the Netherlands complies with the said judgment. It should be noted in this connection that the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in their reply to the letter of formal notice under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, have indicated that they are in the process of preparing the measures need to comply with the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not yet adopted the necessary provisions to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 22 May 2003 in case C-441/01, the Commission has started infringement proceedings under Article 228 of the EC Treaty and will pursue those proceedings until the Kingdom of the Netherlands complies with the said judgment. It should be noted in this connection that the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in their reply to the letter of formal notice under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, have indicated that they are in the process of preparing the measures need to comply with the judgment.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/591

---

(2004/C 84 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0451/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Food aid and food security programme

In 2001, the food aid and food security programme, with a budget of EUR 454 million, aimed to improve food security in the overall development strategy of beneficiary countries; EUR 25,2 million was earmarked for technical assistance in the field. Can the Commission indicate what technical assistance projects have been subsidised and whether these have proved successful?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

Some 80 % of the EUR 25,2 million provided for technical assistance under the 2001 budget for food and food security was used to finance the contracts of individual experts attached to food security programmes in 23 of the countries receiving our aid.

The rest of the budget was used to finance contracts for monitoring food aid (around 10 %) and monitoring and/or evaluation contracts for our food security programmes (around 10 %).

Each food security programme provides for a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation carried out by independent consultants. These evaluations, which obviously consider the technical assistance component, are launched under the EC's framework contract system and are regularly presented to the Food Aid and Food Security Committees.

The technical assistance component is also evaluated in the overall evaluation exercises conducted by the Commission.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/591

---

(2004/C 84 E/0667)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0457/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Strain on main roads

Local organisations and associations in the municipality of Voula are complaining that the Greek Parliament has adopted an amendment relating to the use of the land along sections of major roads, such as the avenues Vouliagmenis, Varis and Karamanli, in order to allow commercial activities in an area which has been designated ‘purely residential’ since 1926. The status of the land is defined in Presidential Decrees of 1926, 1934, 1940 and 1952 and is confirmed by the Council of State in its decisions 554/2000, 2314 and 2315/2002 as well as Law 3044/2002.

Furthermore, recent research carried out by the National Technical University of Athens shows that commercial activity along main roads such as Vouliagmenis creates serious problems for the operation of the network and has a detrimental impact on the environment and the rest of the residential fabric of the area. Moreover, according to the fundamental principles of the EU's operational programme, the construction of roads is subsidised with a view to improving the quality of life in large cities, and reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

Will the Commission intervene to prevent the deterioration of the urban environment in the area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under Article 211 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Member States properly apply Community law. In matters which are not covered by Community law the Commission is unable to intervene.

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to be covered by Community law. So the Commission would have no basis for intervening. The matter would have to be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in Greece.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/592 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/592

---

(2004/C 84 E/0668)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Aviation health warnings

In view of the growing evidence of health risks involved with flying (deep vein thrombosis, exposure to cosmic radiation, airborne infections etc.), does the Commission agree that safety warnings announced on aircraft prior to take-off should be extended to include an appropriate health warning?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The Commission agrees that air carriers have an important part to play, alongside health authorities, in informing passengers about the possibility of developing deep vein thrombosis. As a precautionary measure, they should warn their passengers of the risk of deep vein thrombosis, of predisposing factors to the illness and of preventive measures to take before flying and on-board the aircraft. The Vice-president of the Commission in charge of Energy and Transport has written to Community carriers urging them to give passengers such information and intends now to write again to see what each airline has done. However, the Commission considers that it is for airlines to decide on the most effective means of getting the message across rather than for public authorities to lay it down.

The Commission is financing research on the strength and nature of the link between air travel and deep vein thrombosis, the results of which will be available in mid-2005. This should considerably advance understanding of the condition and of what should be done to prevent it. It is also supporting research on conditions in aircraft cabins, including air quality, on which possible measures could be based.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/592 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/592

---

(2004/C 84 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   State aid to the Rome milk plant

Following privatisation of the Rome milk plant, a number of complaints were made concerning alleged irregularities in the privatisation procedure. Subsequently, the Commission found that the aid provided by the Municipality of Rome to the municipal milk plant Azienda Communale Centrale del Latte (ACCL) constituted State aid in a sector in which there is considerable intra-Community trade. The Commission also found that over the period 1992 to 1997 the Municipality of Rome had written off ACCL's annual losses amounting to LIT 96,6 billion and took the view that these write-offs were to be regarded as the granting of public aid in breach of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty. The Commission therefore concluded that ACCL had received an undue economic and financial advantage over its competitors in Italy and other EU countries which had not benefited from contributions of this kind. Article 3 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999 (1) was therefore applicable in full. Consequently, by Decision of 11 April 2000, notified under reference C(2000) 1173 (2), the Commission ordered the Italian government to recover from ACCL the aid granted to write off its losses during the financial years 1992 to 1997 in an amount of LIT 96,6 billion, together with interest running from the date on which the aid was made available until the date of its actual recovery.

So far, however, the amounts wrongly paid have not been recovered by the relevant Italian authorities and no recovery procedures are underway, despite the fact that the European Commission has sent the Italian government a letter of reminder asking it to verify whether the amounts have actually been recovered.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Who complained to the Commission about these operations in 1996? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Who complained to the Commission about these operations in 1996?

| 2. | Which Italian authorities were notified of the Commission's decision and did those authorities inform the Commission of the timetable and procedures for recovering the amounts involved within the following two months, as required by that decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Which Italian authorities were notified of the Commission's decision and did those authorities inform the Commission of the timetable and procedures for recovering the amounts involved within the following two months, as required by that decision?

| 3. | Which other entities, apart from the Italian government, then had to be informed and by which Community bodies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Which other entities, apart from the Italian government, then had to be informed and by which Community bodies?

| 4. | Who in fact should have received the notification and who should have acted upon it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Who in fact should have received the notification and who should have acted upon it?

| 5. | Are there any rules governing the recovery of such amounts and is there a limitation period for recovery? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are there any rules governing the recovery of such amounts and is there a limitation period for recovery?

| 6. | Has the Commission applied to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) following the Italian government's failure to notify it of the measures taken to comply with the Commission decision by 19 December 2000 and, if not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Has the Commission applied to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) following the Italian government's failure to notify it of the measures taken to comply with the Commission decision by 19 December 2000 and, if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

On 11 April 2000 the Commission adopted Decision 2000/628/EC regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma.

| 1. | As indicated in the above-mentioned Decision, the investigation on the State aid granted to the Rome milk plant was initiated in 1996 following a complaint of an individual. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As indicated in the above-mentioned Decision, the investigation on the State aid granted to the Rome milk plant was initiated in 1996 following a complaint of an individual.

| 2. | Commission Decision 2000/628/EC was notified by the Commission to the Italian State, via the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union. From the Commission file it does not appear that the timetable and the procedures for recovering the amounts involved were communicated to the Commission within two months. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Decision 2000/628/EC was notified by the Commission to the Italian State, via the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union. From the Commission file it does not appear that the timetable and the procedures for recovering the amounts involved were communicated to the Commission within two months.

| 3. and 4. | Following the notification of a decision from the Commission to a Member State, the Member State is responsible for the implementation of the Commission decision within its jurisdiction. Save as otherwise provided by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3), no other entities have to be directly informed by the Commission. The Commission informs the public of the final decisions adopted by it through their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, as happened in this case. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Following the notification of a decision from the Commission to a Member State, the Member State is responsible for the implementation of the Commission decision within its jurisdiction. Save as otherwise provided by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3), no other entities have to be directly informed by the Commission. The Commission informs the public of the final decisions adopted by it through their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, as happened in this case.

| 5. | The rules governing the recovery of State aids and the limitation period for recovery are set out in Article 14 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The rules governing the recovery of State aids and the limitation period for recovery are set out in Article 14 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999.

| 6. | The Commission has not referred the case to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is in the process of verifying what measures the Italian State has taken to comply with the above-mentioned Decision regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma. If after this verification, the Commission is informed that Italy has not complied with the said Decision, as stated by Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission has not referred the case to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is in the process of verifying what measures the Italian State has taken to comply with the above-mentioned Decision regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma. If after this verification, the Commission is informed that Italy has not complied with the said Decision, as stated by Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2)  OJ L 265, 19.10.2000, p. 15.

(3)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/594 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/594

---

(2004/C 84 E/0670)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0472/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Subject:   Common External Tariffs

In 2002, under the Common External Tariff, what was the aggregate value (in euro billion) of the customs duties (i.e. ‘tariffs’) that the 15 EU Member States collected on goods (including agricultural produce) imported into the EU from countries which were not members of the EU; and what was the aggregate value in 2002, (in billion euro), of all such imports of goods (including agricultural produce) into the EU from countries which were not members of the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Customs duties (i.e. duties on non-agricultural products) and agricultural duties are collected by Member States on imports from third countries and are paid with a two-month delay to the Commission, after deduction of 25 % in collection costs.

For the year 2002, the aggregate value for the EU-15 of agricultural duties and customs duties recorded in the EU accounts, before deduction of collection costs, amounted to EUR 1,18 billion and EUR 12,92 billion, respectively.

The aggregate value of import duties collected on goods (including agricultural products) — i.e. the addition of the last two above-mentioned figures — amounted consequently to EUR 14,10 billion for the EU-15 in 2002.

See below the breakdown by Member State.

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | Agricultural duties | Import duties (excluding agricultural duties) | Import duties (including agricultural duties) |
| European Union | 1 180,3 | 12 917,5 | 14 097,8 |
| Belgium | 22,9 | 1 346,2 | 1 369,1 |
| Denmark | 7,4 | 258,5 | 265,9 |
| Germany | 144,2 | 2 743,2 | 2 887,4 |
| Greece | 12,0 | 173,2 | 185,2 |
| Spain | 38,1 | 887,7 | 925,8 |
| France | 132,6 | 1 178,1 | 1 310,7 |
| Ireland | 0,7 | 135,4 | 136,1 |
| Italy | 72,6 | 1 290,7 | 1 363,3 |
| Luxembourg | 0,2 | 16,7 | 16,9 |
| Netherlands | 201,8 | 1 340,5 | 1 542,3 |
| Austria | 10,8 | 208,9 | 219,7 |
| Portugal | 20,4 | 123,0 | 143,4 |
| Finland | 3,7 | 98,7 | 102,4 |
| Sweden | 14,7 | 348,0 | 362,7 |
| United Kingdom | 498,2 | 2 768,7 | 3 266,9 |

(million euros)

Agricultural duties

Import duties (excluding agricultural duties)

Import duties (including agricultural duties)

European Union

1 180,3

12 917,5

14 097,8

Belgium

22,9

1 346,2

1 369,1

Denmark

7,4

258,5

265,9

Germany

144,2

2 743,2

2 887,4

Greece

12,0

173,2

185,2

Spain

38,1

887,7

925,8

France

132,6

1 178,1

1 310,7

Ireland

0,7

135,4

136,1

Italy

72,6

1 290,7

1 363,3

Luxembourg

0,2

16,7

16,9

Netherlands

201,8

1 340,5

1 542,3

Austria

10,8

208,9

219,7

Portugal

20,4

123,0

143,4

Finland

3,7

98,7

102,4

Sweden

14,7

348,0

362,7

United Kingdom

498,2

2 768,7

3 266,9

According to the latest information from Member States, compiled by Eurostat, the aggregate value of extra EU-15 imports of goods (1) (including agricultural products) for the period November 2001-October 2002 (corresponding to payments of import duties to the EU budget between January 2002 and December 2002), amounted to EUR 916,5 billion for the EU-15 (see below the breakdown by Member State).

| European Union | 916,5 |
| --- | --- |
| Belgium | 57,8 |
| Denmark | 14,9 |
| Germany | 216,5 |
| Greece | 15,0 |
| Spain | 55,3 |
| France | 99,3 |
| Ireland | 18,3 |
| Italy | 101,9 |
| Luxembourg | 2,9 |
| Netherlands | 106,2 |
| Austria | 24,2 |
| Portugal | 9,4 |
| Finland | 11,8 |
| Sweden | 22,4 |
| United Kingdom | 160,6 |

European Union

916,5

Belgium

57,8

Denmark

14,9

Germany

216,5

Greece

15,0

Spain

55,3

France

99,3

Ireland

18,3

Italy

101,9

Luxembourg

2,9

Netherlands

106,2

Austria

24,2

Portugal

9,4

Finland

11,8

Sweden

22,4

United Kingdom

160,6

For information, please note that the total value of extra EU-15 imports of goods (including agricultural products) in 2002 (January-December) is EUR 920,2 billion (see below the breakdown by Member State).

| European Union | 920,2 |
| --- | --- |
| Belgium | 58,7 |
| Denmark | 14,7 |
| Germany | 215,4 |
| Greece | 15,5 |
| Spain | 56,3 |
| France | 99,5 |
| Ireland | 18,2 |
| Italy | 103,4 |
| Luxembourg | 2,9 |
| Netherlands | 106,9 |
| Austria | 24,7 |
| Portugal | 9,2 |
| Finland | 12,1 |
| Sweden | 23,0 |
| United Kingdom | 159,5 |

European Union

920,2

Belgium

58,7

Denmark

14,7

Germany

215,4

Greece

15,5

Spain

56,3

France

99,5

Ireland

18,2

Italy

103,4

Luxembourg

2,9

Netherlands

106,9

Austria

24,7

Portugal

9,2

Finland

12,1

Sweden

23,0

United Kingdom

159,5

The imports are measured according to the Cost, insurance and freight (CIF) value. This means that all transport and insurance costs are included up to the border of the importing country.

These statistics are based on harmonised Community concepts which can differ, in some cases, from the national concepts used by Member States.

---

(1)  Free trade goods (Regime 1). The corresponding statistics for total trade (Regime 4) are: EUR 987,2 billion for November 2001-October 2002 and EUR 989,4 billion for the year 2002 (January-December). Goods included under Regime 4 but not in Regime 1 are partially or totally exempted from import duties.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/596 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/596

---

(2004/C 84 E/0671)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Pension adjustment

Pension reform is now on the agenda in all the Member States for various reasons. Does the Commission not think that the time has come to standardise pension reform on the basis of a common Community model? Although the historical, social and economic reasons for the introduction of the present pension systems vary, there is one principle which should be safeguarded in all countries, that of pension adjustment. The Italian Constitutional Court has already ruled (173/1986) that the minimum subsistence amount insured is not merely the amount that satisfies vital basic needs but also needs commensurate with the standard of living achieved by the worker concerned in terms of income and position. This approach has also been advocated on several occasions at Community level, supported by the view that pension adjustment solely on the basis of the percentage increase in the cost of living is not sufficient to maintain pension purchasing power and that pensions should therefore also be linked to earnings and, in other words, to salary and wage rises.

Pending the opening of a debate on a single European pension system, does the Commission not consider that it could usefully address a communication to Member States to ensure that the principle of pension adjustment is safeguarded, so as to avoid any further loss of pension purchasing power?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

One of the common objectives underlying the open method of coordination with regard to pensions calls on Member States to ‘provide access for all individuals to appropriate pension arrangements, public and/or private, which allow them to earn pension entitlements enabling them to maintain, to a reasonable degree, their living standard after retirement’. These objectives are not legally binding, and national pension systems may differ considerably in their approach. However, the result should be to guarantee retired people a standard of living that is not too different from that of the active population.

As life expectancy is increasing and people on average can look forward to a longer retirement, the indexing of current pensions becomes an important factor in determining pensioners' standard of living. Most statutory pensions schemes provide for price indexing, while in some Member States indexing is at least partly based on wages (1). Benefits payable under supplementary schemes are generally either fixed in nominal terms or price-indexed.

The Commission has no plans for a communication to Member States calling on them to change their pensions indexing systems. Any such action could be interpreted as a move towards the harmonisation of legislation, which is explicitly ruled out by Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the question of adequacy must be considered in a wider context, taking account of all the common objectives (including those relating to financial sustainability) as well as other benefits that are important from the point of view of older people's quality of life. In this connection it may be legitimate for a Member State to decide to limit price indexing of pensions, which may make it possible either to offer higher pensions immediately after retirement or to finance other benefits for older people. The needs of retired people do in fact change with age, and older pensioners may have more need for benefits in kind (health care and long-term nursing care) than cash benefits.

---

(1)  For more details see website ‘Missoc — Social protection in the Member States and the European Economic Area’ (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc/index_en.html).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/597 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/597

---

(2004/C 84 E/0672)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Closure of certain language sections of the European Schools

It would appear from a Commission document that there are plans to close the Italian, Dutch and German sections of four European schools (Bergen, Culham, Mol and Karlsruhe).

The Commission:

| 1. | Can it confirm the report and explain the reasons for taking this step? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it confirm the report and explain the reasons for taking this step?

| 2. | Does it not think that these closures would be prejudicial to the rights of the families of staff working in the centres concerned to educate their children in the culture of their country of origin, through their mother tongue? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it not think that these closures would be prejudicial to the rights of the families of staff working in the centres concerned to educate their children in the culture of their country of origin, through their mother tongue?

| 3. | Does it not consider that children who are unable to attend a section in their own language and are therefore obliged to attend another language section could become victims of cultural colonialisation in languages which are becoming even more dominant because of arrangements of this kind? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it not consider that children who are unable to attend a section in their own language and are therefore obliged to attend another language section could become victims of cultural colonialisation in languages which are becoming even more dominant because of arrangements of this kind?

| 4. | Should the cultural and linguistic diversity extolled in official speeches and texts not also be respected in the system of European Schools, which, among other things, sets an inspiring example of how a European dimension can be achieved in education? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should the cultural and linguistic diversity extolled in official speeches and texts not also be respected in the system of European Schools, which, among other things, sets an inspiring example of how a European dimension can be achieved in education?

| 5. | What action does the Commission intend to propose to Member State governments to ensure that the European schools find organisational and funding solutions that will guarantee respect for the right to cultural diversity? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What action does the Commission intend to propose to Member State governments to ensure that the European schools find organisational and funding solutions that will guarantee respect for the right to cultural diversity?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission is a Member of the 16 Member Board of Governors of the European Schools with the other Board Members being appointed by each Member State government. In that capacity the Commission put on the agenda of the January 2004 meeting of the Board a request that the criteria agreed by the Board of Governors in October 2000 in relation to the opening, maintenance and closure of language sections in European Schools (the so-called ‘Gaignage’ report criteria), be applied in relation to certain language sections in the European Schools of Culham, Mol, Bergen and Karlsruhe.

These criteria, unanimously adopted by the Board of Governors representing all Member State governments in 2000, specified that a language section should be closed if, over a two-year period, there are 3 7 or fewer pupils in the entire primary section and 42 or fewer pupils in the entire secondary section, or if the numbers of category I pupils (children of EU staff) are low.

These two criteria can be applied separately, but they both apply in fact to the Italian and Dutch sections in Culham, the Italian section in Mol, the Italian and German sections in Bergen, and the Dutch section in Karlsruhe. In the Italian section in Karlsruhe, although the pupil numbers are slightly higher than the minimum specified by the Gaignage criteria, the pupils are almost exclusively category III pupils (children whose parents have no link to EU institutions). That brings the second Gaignage criteria fully into effect.

Detailed figures on pupil numbers in each school and each language section will readily be provided to the Honourable Member by the Commission. By way of example, in the Italian language section in the Mol European School, there are currently only five primary age pupils and 13 secondary age pupils with only two being children of EU staff, while in the Dutch language section in the Culham European School there are 32 primary age pupils and 33 secondary age pupils — none of the pupils being children of EU staff.

The Commission is committed to the principle that a multi-lingual European education be available for the children of EU staff in all locations where there are EU Institutions and certainly does not subscribe to any form of ‘cultural colonialism’. However, on the issue of language sections the Commission and the remainder of the Board of Governors believe that, in locations with few EU staff, the multi-lingual European education offered by European Schools may be delivered in different ways, and cannot always be in the mother tongue of each child. The situation at Culham, in particular, is further complicated by the fact that there are no longer any EU institutions or EU staff there.

The Commission asks the Honourable Member to note that, under the criteria adopted, the language sections are only gradually to be phased out and will not suddenly be closed. After a decision reflecting the relevant criteria is taken, linguistic sections continue to function at least for a further six academic years until the current cycles of primary, secondary and baccalaureate teaching are finished (in this case, until July 2011).

The Commission sees no valid arguments for preserving artificially, and at great expense to the tax payer and EU budget, very small language sections in small European Schools, particularly in the light of the Bösch Report — adopted by the Parliament in 2002 — concerning the financing of the European Schools and the need for better financial management, taking account of growing spending needs arising from EU enlargement and the necessary creation of new Polish, Hungarian and Czech sections in the Brussels and Luxembourg European Schools.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/599

---

(2004/C 84 E/0673)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Banana trade

In 1998 the EU launched a three-year ‘New Banana Recovery programme’. Please could the Commission confirm if the productivity of bananas has been increased or decreased since this date?

Has an inquiry taken place following the three-year programme to ascertain if it was a success? If so, please give details.

Following the end of the recovery programme was a new Banana Recovery programme launched? If so, please give details. Who approved this programme?

Were any MEPs substantially involved in the Banana Recovery programme? If so, please give details.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (1) introduced management and support measures for this product.

On the structural aid side, measures to improve quality and competitiveness for the banana production chain were included in the 1994-1999 Operational Programmes for structural assistance in Objective 1 regions and were maintained for the period 2000-2006. There is however no specific ‘three-year programme’ of Structural Fund assistance for banana production.

Since the market organisation was set up launching aid has been available for banana producer groups.

There is also an income loss compensation scheme for producers. The rate applied is calculated for each marketing year.

A report assessing the effectiveness of the various market organisation measures is due at the end of this year.

---

(1)  OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/599

---

(2004/C 84 E/0674)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Eurostat

Could the Commission confirm if any of the OLAF investigators initially involved in the Eurostat investigation were amongst the 12 former UCLAF staff moved from OLAF to the Commission in 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that four of the officials referred to in the Honourable Member's written question were part of the investigation section of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) which dealt, among other things, with the questions relating to Eurostat.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/600

---

(2004/C 84 E/0675)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Rural development: young farmers

The recently adopted reform of the CAP improves some forms of aid for young farmers (chiefly as regards setting-up and investment).

Rural development policy still does not give priority to young farmers, even though the rapid ageing of the European farming population may make agriculture a residual economic activity. The new CAP reform does not yet resolve all the difficulties experienced by young farmers in successfully running a farm, and this is currently the real obstacle to the survival of the traditional model of European farming.

Has the Commission considered tackling the problem within the framework of the forthcoming reform of the structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The concerns of young farmers in European agriculture have been taken seriously into account in the Common agricultural policy (CAP) reform agreed in June 2003. The modifications that the Honourable Member states in his written question (higher aids for setting up and investment) have been introduced through an amendment to the rural development Regulation (1) approved by this reform.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/03 (2) has introduced three new provisions in the new rural Development Regulation which will improve the treatment given to young farmers: an increase of 5 % in the percentage of public support for investments in agricultural holdings: the previous percentage for public aid in young farmers' agricultural holdings investments was of 45 % — and 55 % in less favoured areas — (LFA); now it will be of 50 % — and 60 % in LFA; higher support for the setting-up of young farmers: until now it was EUR 25 000 and now, with the new Regulation, the setting up premium can go up to EUR 30 000 to young farmers who are using farm advisory services linked to the setting-up of their activity during a period of three years after setting-up; and finally, a new recital has been introduced in the Regulation which establishes that because ‘young farmers represent a key factor in the rural areas, support to this category of farmers should be considered a priority’.

Member States can now take the chance of this reform to adapt their rural development programmes according to new provisions of the Regulation.

Currently, and after the presentation of the Communication on the new financial perspectives 2007-2013 (3) and the Third Cohesion report, the Commission is working on the preparation of the future new rural development Regulation, which will be presented before the summer break of 2004. In preparing the new draft Regulation, the Commission will reflect on how the new Rural Development policy can take specific account of the needs of young farmers.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(3)  COM(2004) 101 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/601

---

(2004/C 84 E/0676)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0484/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Rural development: less-favoured areas

The European Parliament's report on the recently adopted reform of the common agricultural policy placed particular emphasis on boosting rural development aid for less-favoured areas. Even though the final decision incorporates many of Parliament's demands, it will bring about little improvement in the situation for such areas, since this did not figure among the objectives of the initial Commission proposal.

Bearing in mind that rural development should be one of the Community's cohesion policy instruments, will the Commission improve the treatment given to these regions with a view to the forthcoming reform of the structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under the reform the average compensatory allowance that can be granted in the less favoured areas has been increased, in cases where this is justified on factual grounds, to a maximum annual amount of EUR 250 per hectare instead of EUR 200 as previously.

Support for investment by young farmers has been boosted in the less favoured rural areas since they are a key factor in their development: under the new provisions of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) the maximum total aid, as a percentage of the eligible investment volume, has risen from 55 % to 60 %. This provision is applicable for a period of five years from setting up.

Support under Article 16 for farmers in less favoured areas who are subject to restrictions in connection with the ‘Birds’ (2) and ‘Habitat’ (3) Directives can be raised to EUR 500 per hectare in warranted cases where specific problems are faced. This higher support is granted annually on a degressive basis for not more than five years from the date on which the new restrictions become mandatory in line with Community legislation.

All the rural development measures, including the compensatory allowance for less favoured areas, will be re-examined in preparation for the Regulation on rural development support during the programming period after 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/602 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/602

---

(2004/C 84 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0485/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   EU forest strategy: ‘Forest Focus’

Fires are one of the main causes of desertification and loss of biodiversity in European forests. The fires which broke out last year caused genuinely traumatic situations in the Member States affected, but there are few Community measures in place to combat the problem, which is becomingly increasingly widespread. The new ‘Forest Focus’ regulation on the monitoring of forests is virtually the only genuinely ‘Community’ instrument geared to combating fires, since corresponding rural development actions are carried out in isolation and are not structured at European level.

Will the Commission make good this deficit in its forthcoming report on the EU's forest strategy?

If so, can it list the measures that are being considered?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Forest fire prevention measures are currently supported by Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (1)) and by the Rural Development Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (2)).

The forest fire prevention measures included in the Forest Focus and Rural Development Regulations must conform to the forest fire protection plans of the Member States and take, thereby, into account the specific priorities and needs of the different regions. Moreover, the forestry measures of the Rural Development Regulation provide an integrated approach to sustainable forest management. As such, this approach considers forest fire prevention, in areas of high and medium fire risk, as an indispensable element in the development of silvicultural systems aiming at sustainable forest management.

To improve the preparedness of the national forest fire-fighting operational centres, the Commission developed a series of monitoring instruments, which provide for forecasting fire risk levels on a daily basis and at pan-European level. The main results are forest fire risk maps, which are delivered day by day to the competent national authorities and services, as well as to the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre established under Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom, of 23 October 2001, establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions (3). This centre coordinates the mutual assistance interventions whenever such help is requested. Moreover, after the 2003 fires, the Commission started offering training courses for national intervention teams and it is organising a major forest fire exercise in order to better respond in future to disasters.

The forthcoming report on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, set up by Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 (4), is intended to examine the achievements of the ongoing forest actions also in relation to the forest fire problem and, if appropriate, draw conclusions about possible improvements. At the present stage, this report is in preparation and finalisation is foreseen before October 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 324, 11.12.2003.

(2)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3)  OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(4)  OJ C 56, 26.2.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/603 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/603

---

(2004/C 84 E/0678)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0486/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   The new CAP and direct aid to the enlargement countries

The agricultural agreement on the accession of the eastern European countries to the European Union will allow these countries to grant direct aid to farmers.

Given that the accession countries will be able to combine this direct aid with rural development funding and national aid during the transitional period, does the Commission have full information on the overall amounts of direct aid which farmers will receive in each of the new Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Farmers in the new Member States acceding to the EU as from 1 May 2004 will be eligible for direct payments. However, during a transitional period these direct payments are phased in; starting at a 25 % level in 2004 to a 100 % level in 2013 (1). On top of the EU funded direct payments, the new Member States may pay complementary national direct payments during a transitional period.

The complementary national direct payments are subject to several limitations. In any case, the EU direct payments and the complementary national payments together may not be more than 100 % of the level of the EU direct payments. Furthermore, the programmes for complementary national direct payments have to be approved by the Commission before they may be implemented. In the years 2004 to 2006, the expenditure for the national complementary direct payments can be co-financed from the rural development allocations of the new Member States. However, co-financing is only available up to 40 % of the EU direct payments level and only 20 % of the rural development allocations may be used for that purpose.

Apart from the direct payments and in accordance with the Act of Accession, Latvia and Cyprus may grant nationally financed State aids to specific sectors during a transitional period. These State aids are limited by precise, per sector maxima in the Act of Accession (Act of Accession, Annex II, Chapter 6 Agriculture, Point 27 (f) (2)).

Measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (3), as adapted in particular by the Act of Accession, are aimed at projects or activities that need to be supported in the context of the EU's rural development policy; i.e. investment in holdings and food processing, undertakings to improve the environment, farming in less favoured areas, semi-subsistence aid, etc.

At present, the Commission does not have information on the total level of EU direct payments and national complementary direct payments that will be paid in the new Member States. No national programme for complementary direct payments has been approved yet.

---

(1)  See Articlela of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, as amended by the Act of Accession.

(2)  OJ L 236, 23.9.2003.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/604 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/604

---

(2004/C 84 E/0679)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0488/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   EU dairy sector: milk quotas and enlargement

Milk production subject to quotas will increase by 16 % in the EU following the accession of the eastern European countries. However, many of the new Member States do not have effective control over their production volumes.

How will the Commission guarantee that the accession of these countries will not lead to the appearance of ‘black’ milk on the European market, with repercussions on internal prices?

Does the Commission have any estimates of the repercussions which accession will have on Community milk prices in the short and medium term?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

All new Member States will apply the EU ‘acquis’ including the full quota regime from 1 May 2004. Only Poland and Slovenia have been granted a transitional period of one year, for the allocation of individual quotas, based on the Act of Accession.

Milk quotas will increase by 16 % in the EU following the accession of the new Member States. However, the internal market of the EU will expand by 20 % of new consumers. Due to continuous growth of family, income in the new Member States prospects of milk consumption remain positive, with significant growth for high value products like cheese and fresh products.

The present basic structure of the dairy industry in most new Member States is different from the one in the EU-15. It is characterised by a large semi-subsistence sector along with a high share of on-farm consumption and direct sales. New Member States will have full responsibility from the date of accession to execute all provisions on control issues set up in the ‘acquis’ including controls carried out at farm level, during transport of the milk and at dairy level. All milk that leaves the farm has to be registered either under the direct sales or delivery quota.

The Commission is monitoring the progress made by the new Member States to implement the milk quota system. Reports on Peer Review Missions carried out by the Commission in new Member States in 2002 and 2003 were quite positive, although it was stated that further work is still required. Therefore, certain transitional problems cannot be excluded.

As regards the impact of enlargement on the dairy industry in EU-25, the Commission has published a report based on statistical information available at the beginning of May 2003 (1). According to this report, production of butter after enlargement would decline (mainly in EU-15) from 2,16 million tonnes (t) in 2004 to 2,03 million tonnes in 2010. In the same period, cheese production would expand by 0,5 million tonnes (mainly in EU-15). Nevertheless, a persistent market surplus for butter and skimmilk powder (SMP) would cause prices for these products to remain at relatively low levels in EU-25. Average producer prices for milk would develop less positively than in EU-15 without enlargement. In the meantime, Council and Parliament took important decisions to reform the milk sector. The Commission is presently updating the report mentioned above to take those new developments into consideration.

---

(1)  Prospects for agricultural markets in the European Union. 2003-2010. European Commission, DG AGRI, June, 2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/605

---

(2004/C 84 E/0680)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0489/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Gender violence in the EU: need for European legislation

According to data provided by the state network of feminist organisations against gender violence, the number of cases of ill-treatment in Spain increased in the period 1999-2003, and there were 315 deaths caused by gender violence.

Other data show that 98 % of victims of violence in the EU are women, and one in five women has been the victim of physical violence from a family member.

The Commission has been undertaking initiatives addressed to the Member States with the aim of resolving this problem since 1996 (European campaign to raise awareness of violence against women in the EU; Community framework strategy on gender equality, adopted on 7 June 2000, whose objectives include action to strengthen and support the fight against and prevention of violence against women; the Daphne and other initiatives), but it is clear that many states are failing to take adequate action, and the Commission is not responsible for the adoption of legislation on protecting women against all forms of ill-treatment.

In view of the passive attitude of certain states such as Spain in the face of a serious problem with a major impact on public opinion, does the Commission intend to draw up proposals for legislation aimed at combating and drastically reducing gender violence at European level?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Combating violence against women is one of the fundamental issues on the European social agenda. Especially domestic violence exists in all countries and across all social classes.

The Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 included among its strategic objectives the fight to eradicate violence against women, covering in particular physical, sexual and psychological violence within the family. The European Union and its Member States have established policies to respond to this call and to fight violence against women through various types of actions.

In response to a series of resolutions adopted by the Parliament, the Commission ran the European awareness-raising campaign on violence against women ‘Zero Tolerance Campaign’ in 1999/2000, with particular emphasis on domestic violence.

Various measures have been taken by the Member States in the last years, partly an impact also of the 1999/2000 European campaign: most of the countries have created 24 hour ‘helplines’ and emergency centres, in addition to existing services like women's shelters. Others have organised national awareness campaigns as well as training measures for professionals dealing with incidents of domestic violence. There were also a number of improvements in law or law enforcement in the Member States, in particular regarding cautionary and police measures, including restraining orders, but also concerning criminal proceedings.

As for the Commission, it does not intend to draw up proposals for legislation aimed at combating and drastically reducing gender violence at European level given the absence of an appropriate legal basis in the Treaty. It should be noted, however, that on the basis of Article 152 of the Treaty relating to public health, a number of actions have been undertaken, in particular the Daphne Programme, which is the most important preventive action programme to fight violence against children, young people and women in the Community.

Daphne is based on the recognition of violence as a crime. It tackles this phenomenon by funding actions for the prevention and the protection of victims. Violence is understood in the widest possible sense, from sexual abuse to domestic violence, from commercial exploitation to bullying in schools, from trafficking to discrimination-based violence against handicapped, minority, migrant or other vulnerable people.

Since 1997, 303 projects have been funded, of which 61 % are dealing with violence against women. Details of all those projects can be found in the database posted on-line on the Daphne website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/daphne/funding_daphne_en.htm).

Also, on this website, more information such as statistics and analysis of the achieved results and their impacts is available.

More recently, in the context of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, seven indicators on domestic violence were adopted by the Council in December 2002, which can be used as an on-going basis to regularly review the progress achieved in the Member States in combating domestic violence.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/606

---

(2004/C 84 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Land Use Plans Implementation Law in Valencia — LRAU

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Valencia regional authorities apply the Land Use Plans Implementation Law (Ley reguladora de la actividad urbanística — LRAU), under which it is possible to expropriate property owners in the public interest? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Valencia regional authorities apply the Land Use Plans Implementation Law (Ley reguladora de la actividad urbanística — LRAU), under which it is possible to expropriate property owners in the public interest?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that owners of houses receive disproportionately small amounts of compensation for their property? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that owners of houses receive disproportionately small amounts of compensation for their property?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that there is no provision for interested parties to express their views and that the occupiers — mostly retired foreigners from all over the European Union — receive little or no information about the authorities' plans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that there is no provision for interested parties to express their views and that the occupiers — mostly retired foreigners from all over the European Union — receive little or no information about the authorities' plans?

| 4. | Does this law violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does this law violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 5. | If so, will the Commission take action to change this situation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If so, will the Commission take action to change this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware that the exercise of property rights in Spain is subject to certain limits and conditions and that the Spanish constitution effectively provides in Article 33 that no person may be deprived of his/her property and rights except by reason of public utility or social interest, on the basis of a compensation and in accordance with the legislation in force. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware that the exercise of property rights in Spain is subject to certain limits and conditions and that the Spanish constitution effectively provides in Article 33 that no person may be deprived of his/her property and rights except by reason of public utility or social interest, on the basis of a compensation and in accordance with the legislation in force.

| 2. | However, as the Commission has stated repeatedly, Member States' land tenure legislation does not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty, which expressly provides in article 295 that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. The conditions governing such matters as the expropriation of land are, therefore, determined by the Member States and the Commission is not in a position to comment on them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

However, as the Commission has stated repeatedly, Member States' land tenure legislation does not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty, which expressly provides in article 295 that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. The conditions governing such matters as the expropriation of land are, therefore, determined by the Member States and the Commission is not in a position to comment on them.

| 3. | Under the terms of the EC Treaty and the Treaty on the European Union, the Community does not have general competence as regards fundamental rights. The Commission could intervene only in the event of violation of fundamental rights in the field of application of Community legislation, which is not the case in the situation described in the written question.
  However, if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been violated, he/she may apply to the European Court of Human Rights for redress, once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under the terms of the EC Treaty and the Treaty on the European Union, the Community does not have general competence as regards fundamental rights. The Commission could intervene only in the event of violation of fundamental rights in the field of application of Community legislation, which is not the case in the situation described in the written question.

However, if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been violated, he/she may apply to the European Court of Human Rights for redress, once all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/607 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/607

---

(2004/C 84 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Reclaiming subsidies granted for setting up industrial activity

Amongst all the many consequences which have arisen and will continue to do so from the eastwards enlargement of the EU, the eastwards relocation of many industries from the oldest Member States is outstanding.

On occasion, the businesses now relocating had in the past received subsidies from the national or regional authorities concerned to set up business on their territory.

Does the Commission believe that it is legal and legitimate that companies which are abandoning regions from which they have received subsidy, in order to relocate in eastern Europe, should return the national or regional subsidy money when they abandon their subsidised premises?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member is not exclusively linked to the enlargement of the EU. Already in 1997, when it adopted the guidelines on national regional aid (1), the Commission took into consideration the necessity of striking a balance between the freedom of enterprises to decide where and when to invest in a rapidly changing environment and the stimulation of such mobile investment in assisted areas. Therefore, under point 4.10 and 4.14 of the guidelines on national regional aid, aid for initial investment and aid for job creation is conditional, through its method of payment or through the conditions associated with its acquisition, on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a minimum period of five years. This condition is included in all regional aid schemes approved by the Commission and must be respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/608 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/608

---

(2004/C 84 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Venezuela — hunger and the Portuguese community

According to media reports the Portuguese Catholic mission in Caracas has stated that many Portuguese immigrants in Venezuela are in serious difficulty. Fr Alexandre Mendonça has declared that At the moment, most people are struggling financially. Those who were well off in Venezuela are now less so and those who were not well off are now in a much worse state'. The situation has been confirmed by Portugal's State Secretary with responsibility for such communities (José Cesário), who has outlined some of the problems being experienced by the Portuguese community. ‘There are social problems which, in certain cases, become highly complicated issues relating to young children, elderly people, Portuguese nationals who have been completely uprooted, and drug addicts.’ He admits that there are many complicated situations involving emigrant Portuguese communities scattered across the world, but nothing compares with the situation in Venezuela.

‘Thousands of people are going hungry and some of them have no home or other shelter and are experiencing immense difficulties. Equally serious situations exist in France but a variety of remedies can fortunately be applied. In Venezuela the situation is much more complex,’ he stated.

This is an alarming state of affairs which contrasts with the levels of prosperity which Venezuela has known in the past.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | Is the Commission aware of the food and other shortages described above? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission aware of the food and other shortages described above?

| — | What is its analysis of the problems outlined? |
| --- | --- |

—

What is its analysis of the problems outlined?

| — | What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) vis-à-vis the Venezuelan authorities in order to alert them to the state of affairs described above and to help resolve it? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) vis-à-vis the Venezuelan authorities in order to alert them to the state of affairs described above and to help resolve it?

| — | Is it willing to work with the Portuguese and Venezuelan Governments in an attempt to solve the problems? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it willing to work with the Portuguese and Venezuelan Governments in an attempt to solve the problems?

| — | Is it willing to provide emergency aid, should such be requested? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it willing to provide emergency aid, should such be requested?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the strong economic recession that Venezuela is suffering, marked by two consecutive years of severe negative growth. An economic recovery was expected for this year, but appears at risk given the unstable political situation. The Venezuelan population, mainly those with low economic resources, are feeling the impact of this situation, some of them finding it difficult to buy the amount of food they are used to. The Portuguese community in Venezuela is also affected by this general problem, although the Commission has not been made aware of any specific concerns as regards that community.

The economic difficulties have forced a reduction in companies' production and even closure of some enterprises; affecting also the Portuguese community involved in production activities. The Delegation of the Commission in Caracas works with Member States' Embassies and Chambers of Trade located in Venezuela in order to improve opportunities for European companies. The Delegation has frequent contacts with the Portuguese community through the Portuguese-Venezuelan Chamber of Trade.

Some economic measures introduced by the government such as price controls and foreign exchange controls are having an effect on European companies trading with Venezuela. Negotiations between European Embassies and the Commission on the one side and Venezuelan economic authorities on the other have resulted in reducing the negative impact of these measures.

The Commission has not received any request for emergency aid and the Commission is not aware of any specific part of the country encountering a serious shortage of food. However, the Commission will continue to monitor the economic situation periodically and, should an emergency aid request be received, examine it with care.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/609 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/609

---

(2004/C 84 E/0684)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Daphne programme

The purpose of the Daphne programme — the 2000-2003 EU programme to combat violence against children, young persons and women — is to help provide a high level of both physical and psychological health protection by protecting children, young persons and women against violence (including in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse), by preventing violence and by providing aid to the victims of violence, with a particular view to preventing further exposure to violence.

Public and private organisations and public institutions can all take part in the programme. The Commission cooperates with the relevant institutions and organisations and encourages transnational cooperation between NGOs and local, regional and national authorities. Activities are intended to involve a significant number of Member States.

The programme represents the start of cooperation within Europe amongst NGOs and voluntary organisations which, according to the Commission, play an essential role in combating the violence perpetrated against children, young persons and women. The Commission also maintains that such organisations frequently provide services which the public authorities are unable to offer or for which they do not have the necessary skills.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | How many projects involving Portuguese NGOs or public entities were supported by the Community during the 2000-2003 period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How many projects involving Portuguese NGOs or public entities were supported by the Community during the 2000-2003 period?

| 2. | What areas did those projects cover? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What areas did those projects cover?

| 3. | How much did the projects cost and what was the percentage of Community co-funding? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How much did the projects cost and what was the percentage of Community co-funding?

| 4. | Do projects for which Community support is requested have to be partnerships between NGOs and public entities, or may such projects involve only NGOs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do projects for which Community support is requested have to be partnerships between NGOs and public entities, or may such projects involve only NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

During the period 2000-2003 the Daphne programme financed five projects where the coordinator was a Portuguese entity (three study centres/institutes and two NGOs), to the tune of EUR 440 506.

A total of 61 organisations and public authorities participated as partners in 32 Daphne projects during the same period.

As regards the areas covered by, and the funding for, those projects, the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat will be receiving under separate cover full information on each of the five projects.

The only requirements regarding project partnerships are that (a) they must be set up by at least two organisations (public or private) in two different Member States and (b) they must play an active part in combating and preventing violence. The partnership may, therefore, consist either in a combination of public authorities and ONGs or in only one of those categories.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/610 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/610

---

(2004/C 84 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons

Under Decision No 2/2003 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee of 15 July 2003 amending Annex II (Social Security) to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons (1), Portuguese citizens who had emigrated to Switzerland but are now retired or receiving an invalidity pension and have returned to Portugal no longer enjoy the option of requesting exemption from compulsory Swiss sickness insurance as from 1 June 2003.

Around 6 000 Portuguese workers, who had not been informed of this change in advance, are now receiving forms from Switzerland on which they must name the insurer of their choice, to which they must immediately pay the corresponding contribution, even though they will not be prohibited from access to health care in Portugal.

Can the Commission explain why Portuguese immigrants to Switzerland are being treated differently from immigrants from other Member States under this decision?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that under the Agreement on Free Movement of Persons with Switzerland (2), it does not depend on the nationality of a pensioner with a Swiss pension but on the Member State where he resides whether he is insured against sickness in Switzerland or in the Member State where he resides. In fact, under this Agreement, pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in certain Member States may ask to be exempt from Swiss sickness insurance and be insured in the Member State of residence, while such pensioners residing in other Member States must be insured in Switzerland.

The possibility to ask not to be insured against sickness in the country which pays a pension does not exist under EU legislation (3): between Member States, a pensioner with a pension from one Member State who resides in another Member State must be insured in the sickness scheme of the Member State which pays him the pension. Annex II (coordination of social security) of the Agreement with Switzerland actually provides that the same rule also applies in the relations between Switzerland and most Member States. But as an exception to this rule, pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal or Finland could initially ask not to be insured in Switzerland.

Nevertheless, Portugal requested at a later stage that such pensioners residing in Portugal could no longer ask to be exempt from the Swiss sickness insurance and be insured in Portugal instead. This required that Annex II of the Agreement be amended by decision of a Joint Committee. As the request meant that Portugal would apply the same rules as most other Member States in relation to Switzerland, which moreover are the same rules as apply amongst Member States, the Joint Committee, consisting of the representatives from the contracting parties in Switzerland, the Member States and the Community agreed to the Portuguese request. Annex II of the Agreement was therefore amended accordingly (4).

Therefore, from 1 June 2003 pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Portugal must be insured against sickness in Switzerland; only pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Germany, France, Italy and Austria may ask not to be insured against sickness in Switzerland.

---

(1)  OJ L 187, 26.7.2003, p. 55.

(2)  OJ L 114, 30.4.2002.

(3)  Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72, 1st consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(4)  2003/554/EC: Decision No 2/2003 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee of 15 July 2003 amending Annex II (Social Security) to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/611 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/611

---

(2004/C 84 E/0686)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0520/04

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean

Knowing that:

| — | European fisheries associations are united in opposition to the proposal for new technical measures for fisheries in the Mediterranean (1). |
| --- | --- |

—

European fisheries associations are united in opposition to the proposal for new technical measures for fisheries in the Mediterranean (1).

| — | The proposal would lead to the creation of an unbridgeable gap between Member States and third countries and would permanently hinder the harmonious development of the Mediterranean. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal would lead to the creation of an unbridgeable gap between Member States and third countries and would permanently hinder the harmonious development of the Mediterranean.

| — | It also ignores the social and economic impact of legislation and the inconsistency of the socio-economic measures contained in structural policy. |
| --- | --- |

—

It also ignores the social and economic impact of legislation and the inconsistency of the socio-economic measures contained in structural policy.

Does the Commission intend to withdraw the proposal at the appropriate time and to rewrite the text following genuine, sincere and in-depth consultations with representatives of the industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no intention of withdrawing this proposal.

The Commission is not aware that fishermen's associations were opposed to the temporary technical measures in the Mediterranean in the document referred to in the written question. These measures have been adopted by the Council as part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003 fixing, for 2004, the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2).

If the Honourable Member intended to refer to the Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea (3), the Commission considers that the opposition shown by fishermen's associations, particularly in the recent public hearing before the Fishery Committee of the Parliament, is comparable to reactions from the fisheries sector to other Commission proposals. Strong opposition from the fishing industry to measures intended to reduce fishing effort or its impact on sustainability is not unusual.

However, the Honourable Member should be aware that there are several divergent positions within the fishing industry on specific points of the Commission proposal. What is acceptable for certain fisheries or fishermen provokes opposition from others.

The Commission proposal is not intended to undermine the interests of Community fishermen but, on the contrary, to address the problems they are facing in terms of a reduction of catch possibilities in a number of important Mediterranean fisheries and to deliver sustainable fisheries in the region.

In the Commission's view, it is for the Community, as the largest fishing power in the Mediterranean region, to give a clear signal of its commitment to sustainable fishing, while at the same time taking action to persuade third countries to cooperate towards the same end within the multilateral framework of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean. This regional fisheries organisation is going to be further strengthened thanks to the initiatives of the Community, including the recent Ministerial Conference in Venice.

Socio-economic measures to counteract possible negative effects on the sector of fisheries management measures may already be taken by Member States. In the Commission's view, the proposed transitional period of six years for the entry into force of the mesh size increases foreseen in the proposed Regulation will avoid drastic and sudden changes that would be difficult for the sector to cope with.

Consultation with the fishing industry on the improvement of fisheries policy in the Mediterranean Sea started well before the issue of the Green Paper on the reform of the Common fisheries policy (CFP) (4) in 2001 and has continued since. Two meetings were held with the industry in 2003 before the latest proposals were presented. The Commission intends to organize further meetings with the fishing industry at national level.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 746 final.

(2)  OJ L 344, 31.12.2003.

(3)  COM(2003) 589 final.

(4)  COM(2001) 135 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/612 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/612

---

(2004/C 84 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Prize draw mailing scams

Companies across Europe are sending people letters advising them that they have won money in prize draws. Some citizens then send money, as they have been instructed to, but they do not receive the reward promised in the literature.

Has the Commission considered this matter recently? Will it submit proposals to protect citizens from such fraud?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

As already stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3814/02 (1), the Commission is fully aware of the widespread practice of fraudulent prize-winning draws where rogue traders seek to take advantage of the freedoms of the internal market. It has proposed legislation to tackle some of the problems involved with this.

Under current legislation, the practice in question appears to clearly infringe Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (2) as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertisement (3). In future, misleading advertising harming consumers' economic interests will be regulated by the proposed Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (4), which will put in place a common, EU-wide framework providing a high level of consumer protection from such unfair practices.

However, the Commission cannot itself take action against the organiser of these prize-draws. The enforcement of national and Community consumer law is the task of the designated national courts and authorities.

Further to this previous answer, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has adopted a proposal for a Regulation on co-operation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (5). This Regulation is designed to address this type of problem through rapid cooperation between public authorities. Once adopted, this Regulation will allow the authority in charge of consumer protection to seek and receive the assistance of its counterpart in another Member State to cease business practices infringing Community consumer law that target consumers cross-border.

The so-called ‘qualified entities’ (6) may already seek an injunction requiring the cessation or prohibition of an infringement of Community consumer law under the terms of the Directive 98/27/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998, on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (7). In a concrete example, the qualified entity of one Member State could ask the competent court of the Member State from which the mail originates to stop sending out misleading letters to its citizens.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

(2)  OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(3)  OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(4)  COM(2003) 356 final.

(5)  COM(2003) 443 finai.

(6)  OJ C 159, 8.7.2003.

(7)  OJ L 166, 11.6.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/613 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/613

---

(2004/C 84 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/04

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Second and Third Community Support Frameworks

Will the Commission give the take-up votes for the 2003 estimates for the Member States of the European Union in respect of the Second and Third Community Support Frameworks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0230/04 by Mr Hatzidakis. (1)

---

(1)  See page 553.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/614 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/614

---

(2004/C 84 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) and Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Amendment of Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products

On 10 February the Management Committee for Wine deliberated on the amendment of Regulation 753/2002 (1) on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products.

Since the committee was unable to deliver an opinion because of its failure to secure a qualified majority, responsibility for the future amendment of the regulation now lies solely with the Commission.

The amendment of the regulation concerns the indications to be included on wine labels. The terms previously used on European wine labels to indicate the production or ageing method or a particular quality, colour or place of production will no longer be protected against possible usurpation by non-European producers.

Since adopting its White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission has stood up for the rights of consumers, with a view to restoring and maintaining confidence in a sector plagued by scandals and doubts.

Consumers are entitled to be provided with information on the quality of foodstuffs and their ingredients and such information must be presented clearly to enable them to make informed choices.

For many years, consumer preferences in Europe have been moving towards healthier products produced by environment-friendly methods. Underpinning this trend has been the Commission's ongoing commitment to ensuring and safeguarding quality.

How can the Commission justify its amendment of this regulation, particularly in the light of the outcome of the vote in the Management Committee for Wine on 10 February (47 in favour, 20 against)?

Does the Commission not consider that the amendment of the regulation is at odds with trends in the rules previously adopted governing quality, protection of typical products and transparency?

In drawing up its proposal to amend the regulation, has the Commission taken account of the predominant position enjoyed by the European Union in the world wine market (accounting for 45 % of wine-growing areas, 65 % of production, 57 % of consumption and 70 % of exports)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Traditional terms are terms that have traditionally been used for describing table wines with a geographical indication and quality wines psr and refer to production method, ageing method, quality, colour etc.

The rules divided traditional terms into two categories, one open to non-EU countries subject to certain requirements fklassic', ‘château’, ‘classico’, ‘reserva’, etc.) and the second wholly reserved for Community wines with a geographical indication and serving to identify these wines as originating in a particular area or place in the Community (‘vin jaune’, ‘amarone’, ‘amontillado’, ‘ruby’, etc.).

This second category of term was attacked by non-EU countries on the grounds that the Community had created a new industrial property right (additional to geographical indications) debarring them from using the terms in question for their wines on the Community market (e.g. ‘fino’, ‘claret’, ‘vintage’, etc.) although some of these terms had long been in use elsewhere in the world.

The new rules enable non-EU countries to use the traditional terms included in a single list on the Community market provided certain rules are observed that are equivalent to those in place for Community wines.

The non-EU country must submit for acceptance by the Commission a dossier showing that the term meets certain conditions such as:

| — | use of the term is regulated in the country itself, |
| --- | --- |

—

use of the term is regulated in the country itself,

| — | the term to be protected is distinctive or reputed within the country, |
| --- | --- |

—

the term to be protected is distinctive or reputed within the country,

| — | the term has been used for at least ten years within the country, |
| --- | --- |

—

the term has been used for at least ten years within the country,

| — | the country's rules on use of the term must not be liable to result in the public's being misled. |
| --- | --- |

—

the country's rules on use of the term must not be liable to result in the public's being misled.

The dossier goes through a ‘management committee’ procedure under which it is examined by the Commission and by the Member States' representatives. A draft of the measure to be adopted is voted on by the Committee prior to adoption by the Commission itself.

Only if the Committee gives a negative opinion (and not therefore if no opinion is given) does the Commission notify the proposed measure to the Council, which may decide otherwise.

Only terms in the language of the country itself can be authorised (e.g. ‘ruby’ in Australia given that English is its official language). If the country wishes to be able to use a term in a language other than its official language (e.g. the English term ‘vintage’ in Brazil, where the official language is Portuguese, or the Italian term ‘brunello’ in the United States, where the official language is English) the term must be provided for in its national legislation and have been used in the country for at least 25 years (Brazil does not meet either requirement for ‘vintage’ nor the United States for ‘brunello’).

The equivalence of the requirements imposed and the fact that the Commission and the Member States examine applications are guarantees against any misuse or encroachment.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/616 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/616

---

(2004/C 84 E/0690)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Access to the waters of the Azores autonomous region

There have been reports in the Portuguese press that the Spanish Government is issuing fishing licences to its vessels so that they can operate in the waters of the Azores, pre-empting fishery agreements and regulations.

There is no dispute about the fact that the waters of the Azores and their fishery resources are extremely sensitive, and essential to the local communities whose livelihoods depend on them, and that for this reason they need to be protected from over-fishing, whether by vessels from the Spanish fleet or from any other foreign fleet.

It is known that there are limits, adopted by the Council in October 2003, laying down minimum conditions, which do not include the possible issue of licences by the Spanish Government so that its vessels can operate in the waters of the Azores.

What action is the Commission going to take to defend the fishery resources and fishermen of the Azores?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is certainly aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member, concerning the presence of Spanish fishing vessels in Azorean waters. There seems, however, to be a certain misunderstanding as regards the applicability of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1). The conditions for fishing activities in the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands are laid down in Article 5 of the above-mentioned Regulation which entered into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (cf. Article 16), i.e. on 14 November 2003. Consequently, the special conditions for fishing in the waters of the Azores and Madeira are applicable from that date onwards. It is up to the national authorities to verify that these rules are followed.

As regards the conservation of the maritime environment in Azorean waters, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to a Commission proposal that was tabled on 3 February 2004 (2). This proposal for a Council Regulation envisages an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (3) which would prohibit trawling in the waters around the Azores as well as around Madeira and the Canary Islands. As far as conservation of fisheries resources is concerned, there are a number of instruments available within the Common Fisheries Policy and which are applied in the Azorean waters as elsewhere, most notably total allowable catches (TACs) and Quotas, and management of fishing effort.

Finally, the Commission is in constant dialogue with the concerned Member States in order to ensure as smooth an application of the new rules as possible.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ L 289, 7.11.2003.

(2)  COM(2004) 58 final.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/617

---

(2004/C 84 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Horse passport

How many of the Member States have put the Directive into their national law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The principles of identification of equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1). Minimum requirements for the identification of registered equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (1). Both Directives have been transposed by all Member States into national law.

Based on Directive 90/427/EEC, the Commission adopted Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae (2).

In accordance with Article 4 of Directive 90/42 6/EEC and motivated by animal welfare and public health concerns, the Commission adopted Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 (3) amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production.

According to Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/68/EC, Member States shall ensure that as from 1 July 2000 at the latest, registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production are accompanied during their movement by the identification document as referred to above. This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Decisions 93/623/EEC and 2000/68/EC do not oblige Member States to notify the legal provisions they have implemented to comply with the provisions of these Decisions. So far, the Commission has not received any complaint in connection with non-implementation of the mentioned Decisions in the Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2)  OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.

(3)  OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/617

---

(2004/C 84 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0540/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Post 2006 financial perspectives

In view of the Commission's proposed financial perspective for 2007-2013:

| — | what is the indicative or planned allocation of authorised expenditure, by Member State and by year for Category 1A (Competitiveness) and 1B (Cohesion), without including the Solidarity Fund? What is the distribution of the total annual authorised expenditure, without taking account of the Solidarity Fund and the European Development Fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the indicative or planned allocation of authorised expenditure, by Member State and by year for Category 1A (Competitiveness) and 1B (Cohesion), without including the Solidarity Fund? What is the distribution of the total annual authorised expenditure, without taking account of the Solidarity Fund and the European Development Fund;

| — | what is the framework of the 2007-2013 financial perspective for the current 15 EU Member States only; |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the framework of the 2007-2013 financial perspective for the current 15 EU Member States only;

| — | how has the weight of the Structural Funds developed between 1988 and 2003, in GDP or Community GDR percentage terms? What are the forecasts for 2004, 2005 and 2006? |
| --- | --- |

—

how has the weight of the Structural Funds developed between 1988 and 2003, in GDP or Community GDR percentage terms? What are the forecasts for 2004, 2005 and 2006?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

| 1. | It is not possible to break down the proposed ceiling for expenditure under Heading 1A by Member State. The weight of each programme under Heading 1A will only be determined at a later stage. At any rate, each programme will consist of a global financial envelope rather than nationally allocated envelopes.
  The amounts for the Solidarity Fund correspond to EUR 1 billion per year in current prices. Since the table contained in the Commission Communication is expressed in constant 2004 prices, the equivalent amounts are:






  (million euro) |
| --- | --- |
| Year | Amount |
| 2007 | 942 |
| 2008 | 924 |
| 2009 | 906 |
| 2010 | 888 |
| 2011 | 871 |
| 2012 | 853 |
| 2013 | 837 |

1.

It is not possible to break down the proposed ceiling for expenditure under Heading 1A by Member State. The weight of each programme under Heading 1A will only be determined at a later stage. At any rate, each programme will consist of a global financial envelope rather than nationally allocated envelopes.

The amounts for the Solidarity Fund correspond to EUR 1 billion per year in current prices. Since the table contained in the Commission Communication is expressed in constant 2004 prices, the equivalent amounts are:

(million euro)

Year

Amount

2007

942

2008

924

2009

906

2010

888

2011

871

2012

853

2013

837

The amounts of the European Development Fund will be negotiated and decided at a later stage.

| 2. | Since the majority of the programmes only consist of global financial envelopes rather than nationally allocated ones, it is not possible to calculate the share of the EU-15 in the financial perspective table.
  The requested figures are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since the majority of the programmes only consist of global financial envelopes rather than nationally allocated ones, it is not possible to calculate the share of the EU-15 in the financial perspective table.

The requested figures are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/618 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/618

---

(2004/C 84 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   CAP: the declining contribution of EU funds to the survival of small farmers in a context of low consumer prices and low world market prices

| 1. | In the Commission's opinion, has the existence of the Common Agricultural Policy in recent decades and the financial assistance from Community funds which it provides helped to enable small and medium-sized farmers, in both the arable and livestock sectors, despite relatively low consumer prices for their products and falling prices on the world market, to remain able to earn an acceptable income and thus to ensure the continuity of production? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Commission's opinion, has the existence of the Common Agricultural Policy in recent decades and the financial assistance from Community funds which it provides helped to enable small and medium-sized farmers, in both the arable and livestock sectors, despite relatively low consumer prices for their products and falling prices on the world market, to remain able to earn an acceptable income and thus to ensure the continuity of production?

| 2. | In the light of the recent study by the development organisation Oxfam, can the Commission confirm that the funding currently provided under the CAP is increasingly failing to guarantee the survival of small farmers and that the bulk of it goes to large farmers and large land-owners? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the recent study by the development organisation Oxfam, can the Commission confirm that the funding currently provided under the CAP is increasingly failing to guarantee the survival of small farmers and that the bulk of it goes to large farmers and large land-owners?

| 3. | When did the change referred to at 2 occur? Did it happen after the accession of new Member States with bigger disparities in land areas owned than existed in the six founder Member States of the European Communities? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When did the change referred to at 2 occur? Did it happen after the accession of new Member States with bigger disparities in land areas owned than existed in the six founder Member States of the European Communities?

| 4. | To what extent was the existing financing method responsible for the fact that, after previous increases in scale, the number of farms in the present 15 Member States declined by a further 15,7 % between 1995 and 2002? Why was this method of financing unable to prevent the development concerned? |
| --- | --- |

4.

To what extent was the existing financing method responsible for the fact that, after previous increases in scale, the number of farms in the present 15 Member States declined by a further 15,7 % between 1995 and 2002? Why was this method of financing unable to prevent the development concerned?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

| 1. | Over recent decades, the instruments of the common agricultural policy have progressively evolved away from supporting products by maintaining high internal prices and providing major protection at the border.
  With the 1992 reform, those prices were progressively reduced and direct aid to producers introduced to compensate farmers' income losses.
  The direct payments were proportional to livestock reared and areas cultivated. They were therefore indirectly linked to production.
  This latter component was recently radically altered by the reform adopted in June 2003 with the introduction of direct payment decoupling. Income support is now independent of the farm's production volume.
  At the same time, a structural rural development policy has been progressively devised to support the process of modernising European agriculture, to pay for farmers' non-commercial — environmental — activities and to support the income of farms located in areas with a natural handicap. Throughout this process the Commission has been attentive to the situation of small and medium-sized farms, which form an important part of Europe's rural fabric. The Commission can affirm that the evolution in types of support has helped to maintain the income of numerous small and medium-sized farms. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Over recent decades, the instruments of the common agricultural policy have progressively evolved away from supporting products by maintaining high internal prices and providing major protection at the border.

With the 1992 reform, those prices were progressively reduced and direct aid to producers introduced to compensate farmers' income losses.

The direct payments were proportional to livestock reared and areas cultivated. They were therefore indirectly linked to production.

This latter component was recently radically altered by the reform adopted in June 2003 with the introduction of direct payment decoupling. Income support is now independent of the farm's production volume.

At the same time, a structural rural development policy has been progressively devised to support the process of modernising European agriculture, to pay for farmers' non-commercial — environmental — activities and to support the income of farms located in areas with a natural handicap. Throughout this process the Commission has been attentive to the situation of small and medium-sized farms, which form an important part of Europe's rural fabric. The Commission can affirm that the evolution in types of support has helped to maintain the income of numerous small and medium-sized farms.

| 2. | As stated above, CAP support was originally linked to the quantities produced and then to the areas cultivated and livestock kept. For structural reasons which preceded the CAP, the large structures present in some Member States therefore received a major share of the support. Since the 1992 reform there has been a slight redistribution of support in favour of small and medium-sized farms, as can be seen from the figures published by the Commission at Parliament's request (1). This evolution has nevertheless been limited by the fact that only two Member States have introduced the modulation mechanism. This mechanism, which provides for a levy on funding intended for direct aid in order to transfer it for the benefit of rural development measures, has so far been optional. Under the 2003 reform, the Commission's proposal that modulation should be made compulsory was adopted by the Council. The transfert will be 3 % from 2005, rising progressively to 5 % from 2007. However, the mechanism will not entail any reduction in direct aid for farms receiving less than EUR 5 000/year. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As stated above, CAP support was originally linked to the quantities produced and then to the areas cultivated and livestock kept. For structural reasons which preceded the CAP, the large structures present in some Member States therefore received a major share of the support. Since the 1992 reform there has been a slight redistribution of support in favour of small and medium-sized farms, as can be seen from the figures published by the Commission at Parliament's request (1). This evolution has nevertheless been limited by the fact that only two Member States have introduced the modulation mechanism. This mechanism, which provides for a levy on funding intended for direct aid in order to transfer it for the benefit of rural development measures, has so far been optional. Under the 2003 reform, the Commission's proposal that modulation should be made compulsory was adopted by the Council. The transfert will be 3 % from 2005, rising progressively to 5 % from 2007. However, the mechanism will not entail any reduction in direct aid for farms receiving less than EUR 5 000/year.

| 3. | There were farm size disparities and large structures in the original six Member States (for example, in Italy), then in some Member States which joined the Union at the time of the successive enlargements (the eastern German Länder, Spain, the United Kingdom), just as there are in some new Member States which are emerging from a centrally-managed economic system. That is also why a structural policy was introduced from the early 1970s to support the process of restructuring and modernising farms. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There were farm size disparities and large structures in the original six Member States (for example, in Italy), then in some Member States which joined the Union at the time of the successive enlargements (the eastern German Länder, Spain, the United Kingdom), just as there are in some new Member States which are emerging from a centrally-managed economic system. That is also why a structural policy was introduced from the early 1970s to support the process of restructuring and modernising farms.

| 4. | The reduction in the number of farms in the EU is the result of numerous factors, including: increased productivity in agriculture and the related increase in farm size, the urbanisation process and employment market changes in the advanced economies.
  It may also be noted that the rate of reduction in farm numbers and in agricultural employment is largely independent of the common agricultural policy's evolution. The CAP's objective is to develop sustainable agriculture — i.e. agriculture which is competitive, economically viable and environmentally compatible — by improving production structures at a socially acceptable cost. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The reduction in the number of farms in the EU is the result of numerous factors, including: increased productivity in agriculture and the related increase in farm size, the urbanisation process and employment market changes in the advanced economies.

It may also be noted that the rate of reduction in farm numbers and in agricultural employment is largely independent of the common agricultural policy's evolution. The CAP's objective is to develop sustainable agriculture — i.e. agriculture which is competitive, economically viable and environmentally compatible — by improving production structures at a socially acceptable cost.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO/02/198|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/620 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/620

---

(2004/C 84 E/0694)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries

| 1. | When the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend the reforms to have in this respect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend the reforms to have in this respect?

| 2. | Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut agricultural production for the EU's internal market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut agricultural production for the EU's internal market?

| 3. | Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers better than at present, for example by setting a limit — e.g. EUR 30 000 — for financial aid to a single farm? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers better than at present, for example by setting a limit — e.g. EUR 30 000 — for financial aid to a single farm?

| 4. | When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will the Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will the Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

| 1. | The new system of direct payments to be introduced with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform will, in principle, not change the distribution of direct support between farms since it is based on historic references. However, taking into account the introduction of direct payments in the dairy sector and the option available to Member States for a regionalisation of the Single Farm Payment, redistribution of payments between farmers, within a region, may take place. Moreover, modulation of direct payments will explicitly favour smaller farms, since the first EUR 5 000 are exempted from modulation.
  In its July 2002 Communication (1), the Commission had proposed to modulate direct payments by up to 20 %, to increase the franchise according to the number of annual worker units and to introduce a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. This would have triggered a stronger redistribution effect but was not supported by a majority of Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The new system of direct payments to be introduced with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform will, in principle, not change the distribution of direct support between farms since it is based on historic references. However, taking into account the introduction of direct payments in the dairy sector and the option available to Member States for a regionalisation of the Single Farm Payment, redistribution of payments between farmers, within a region, may take place. Moreover, modulation of direct payments will explicitly favour smaller farms, since the first EUR 5 000 are exempted from modulation.

In its July 2002 Communication (1), the Commission had proposed to modulate direct payments by up to 20 %, to increase the franchise according to the number of annual worker units and to introduce a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. This would have triggered a stronger redistribution effect but was not supported by a majority of Member States.

| 2. | An important element of CAP reform, as decided by the Council in 2003, was to reinforce the rural development policy in favour of rural areas, by shifting funding from the first to the second pillar. The more targeted support under the second pillar should certainly help those rural areas still facing a net out-migration. However, the Commission's impact assessments show that, while some further exten-sification of agricultural production is expected, no disruptive impacts on overall levels of EU production are foreseen. |
| --- | --- |

2.

An important element of CAP reform, as decided by the Council in 2003, was to reinforce the rural development policy in favour of rural areas, by shifting funding from the first to the second pillar. The more targeted support under the second pillar should certainly help those rural areas still facing a net out-migration. However, the Commission's impact assessments show that, while some further exten-sification of agricultural production is expected, no disruptive impacts on overall levels of EU production are foreseen.

| 3. | In its July 2002 Communication, the Commission proposed a 20 % modulation of direct payments, a higher franchise and a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. These provisions, and in particular the proposed ceiling, were not included into the CAP reform package. For the time being, the Commission has no intention to issue a proposal to change the direct payment scheme in this respect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In its July 2002 Communication, the Commission proposed a 20 % modulation of direct payments, a higher franchise and a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. These provisions, and in particular the proposed ceiling, were not included into the CAP reform package. For the time being, the Commission has no intention to issue a proposal to change the direct payment scheme in this respect.

| 4. | There is no doubt that the process of reform of the CAP, begun in 1992, is beneficial for world trade and offers new opportunities for developing countries. However, the situation and problems of developing countries are different from country to country and therefore the impact of CAP reform may also differ between different developing countries. In order to particularly support the least developed countries, the EU has offered a wide range of highly preferential concessions both on trade and on the more general issues of development. Indeed, the EU is the world's largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries and the main contributor in the world for financing development and cooperation. The objectives of these interventions are to reinforce, amongst other things, infrastructure, institutions and education. In case of emergency aid the EU strictly respects the international rule for a constructive use of food aids. |
| --- | --- |

4.

There is no doubt that the process of reform of the CAP, begun in 1992, is beneficial for world trade and offers new opportunities for developing countries. However, the situation and problems of developing countries are different from country to country and therefore the impact of CAP reform may also differ between different developing countries. In order to particularly support the least developed countries, the EU has offered a wide range of highly preferential concessions both on trade and on the more general issues of development. Indeed, the EU is the world's largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries and the main contributor in the world for financing development and cooperation. The objectives of these interventions are to reinforce, amongst other things, infrastructure, institutions and education. In case of emergency aid the EU strictly respects the international rule for a constructive use of food aids.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 394 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/621 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/621

---

(2004/C 84 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Involvement of the EU in a development project in the Mexican federal state of Chiapas which is causing the resumption of an armed conflict

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, according to the Mexican newspaper ‘La Jornada’ of 3 February 2004, five non-governmental organisations in the south-eastern state of Chiapas consider the European Union to have been involved in an attack on the village of Nuevo San Rafael, controlled by the Zapatista movement and occupied by members of the Chol tribe, in the remote nature reserve of Montes Azules, which consists of primeval forest, on 19 or 22 January, in which attack 23 houses were set on fire, the occupants fled, the village was permanently cut off from the outside world by soldiers and the land is being returned to the former big land-owners to enable them to fell the primeval forest? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, according to the Mexican newspaper ‘La Jornada’ of 3 February 2004, five non-governmental organisations in the south-eastern state of Chiapas consider the European Union to have been involved in an attack on the village of Nuevo San Rafael, controlled by the Zapatista movement and occupied by members of the Chol tribe, in the remote nature reserve of Montes Azules, which consists of primeval forest, on 19 or 22 January, in which attack 23 houses were set on fire, the occupants fled, the village was permanently cut off from the outside world by soldiers and the land is being returned to the former big land-owners to enable them to fell the primeval forest?

| 2. | Does this attack mean that the cease-fire between the armed indigenous rebel movement EZLN and the government army is over? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this attack mean that the cease-fire between the armed indigenous rebel movement EZLN and the government army is over?

| 3. | Was this attack encouraged by the fact that the EU has concluded an agreement concerning a development project worth EUR 15 million with Governor Pablo Salazar, possibly in part in connection with Plan Puebla Panama, which comprises major infrastructure projects in Central America from Panama to nine poor federal states in Mexico, which require the indigenous Indian population to make way for newcomers and to enable the land to be put to new uses or at least compel that population to give up the autonomy which it in practice enjoys? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Was this attack encouraged by the fact that the EU has concluded an agreement concerning a development project worth EUR 15 million with Governor Pablo Salazar, possibly in part in connection with Plan Puebla Panama, which comprises major infrastructure projects in Central America from Panama to nine poor federal states in Mexico, which require the indigenous Indian population to make way for newcomers and to enable the land to be put to new uses or at least compel that population to give up the autonomy which it in practice enjoys?

| 4. | If the EU has unintentionally become involved in the events leading to this armed conflict, will the Commission take all requisite measures to eliminate all the reasons for fear on the part of the population and for a resumption of hostilities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the EU has unintentionally become involved in the events leading to this armed conflict, will the Commission take all requisite measures to eliminate all the reasons for fear on the part of the population and for a resumption of hostilities?

Sources:

| — | Indymedia Chiapas (http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/) |
| --- | --- |

—

Indymedia Chiapas (http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/)

| — | http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=107209 |
| --- | --- |

—

http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=107209

| — | http://www.noticias.nl/globalisering_artikel.php?id=244) |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.noticias.nl/globalisering_artikel.php?id=244)

| — | http://www.proceso.com.mx/noticia.html?nid=21506&cat=1 |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.proceso.com.mx/noticia.html?nid=21506&cat=1

| — | http://www.globalinfo.nl/article/articleview/312/1/2/ |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.globalinfo.nl/article/articleview/312/1/2/

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Mexico states in its first article that the: ‘Respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights, proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the domestic and external policies of both Parties and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement’. The Commission at all times ensures that its actions are consistent with this article.

The Commission recently signed a Financing Agreement with Mexico for the ‘Integrated and Sustainable Social Development Project in Chiapas, Mexico’. Implementation of this project has not yet begun, but is expected to start in the coming months. The Community contribution amounts to EUR 15 million, and Mexico will contribute EUR 16 million.

The beneficiaries of the Project will be 155 000 inhabitants of the 16 micro regions located around (not in) the protected areas of the Lacandona Forest. This population, which is mainly indigenous and rural, has one of the highest levels of poverty and marginalisation in Chiapas.

The project was designed with the input and participation of local stakeholders who will continue to participate in the planning and implementation process, in particular through the Micro-regional Councils (Consejos microregionales) who represent the local communities.

The project is not part of the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP). It has been reported that some local communities and governments in the South/Southeast of Mexico criticise the PPP as a top-down initiative with supposedly inadequate consultation of local stakeholders.

With regard to the specific questions that are asked:

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the press reports in question, and considers any suggestion of EU involvement in any act of violence in Chiapas or elsewhere to be utterly without foundation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the press reports in question, and considers any suggestion of EU involvement in any act of violence in Chiapas or elsewhere to be utterly without foundation.

| 2. | It is not for the Commission to assess whether or not the ceasefire between the EZLN and the government is over. However, its impression is that it would be wrong, on the basis of the reports in question, to draw a general conclusion about the status of the ceasefire. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not for the Commission to assess whether or not the ceasefire between the EZLN and the government is over. However, its impression is that it would be wrong, on the basis of the reports in question, to draw a general conclusion about the status of the ceasefire.

| 3. | No. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the reported attack was encouraged by the signing of the financing agreement for this project. |
| --- | --- |

3.

No. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the reported attack was encouraged by the signing of the financing agreement for this project.

| 4. | The Commission has neither intentionally nor unintentionally become involved in events leading to this reported attack. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission has neither intentionally nor unintentionally become involved in events leading to this reported attack.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/623 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/623

---

(2004/C 84 E/0696)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Continued levying of a tax in Germany which, pursuant to an EU directive, ought no longer to exist in 2004, and use of the revenue from it

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that businesses in Germany are complaining that they still have to pay tax at source on licences from abroad although, pursuant to an EU directive, allied undertakings within the EU are supposed to have been exempt from such taxes since 1 January 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that businesses in Germany are complaining that they still have to pay tax at source on licences from abroad although, pursuant to an EU directive, allied undertakings within the EU are supposed to have been exempt from such taxes since 1 January 2004?

| 2. | In proposing measures, does the Commission take account of the consideration that Member States must be able to raise sufficient tax revenue if they wish to comply with their obligations towards their residents and regarding the preservation of their environment and at the same time have to pass on part of their tax revenue to the EU and comply with the restrictive criteria of the Stability Pact? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In proposing measures, does the Commission take account of the consideration that Member States must be able to raise sufficient tax revenue if they wish to comply with their obligations towards their residents and regarding the preservation of their environment and at the same time have to pass on part of their tax revenue to the EU and comply with the restrictive criteria of the Stability Pact?

| 3. | How much revenue per annum has this tax raised in Germany in recent years — money which, if federal law were to have been amended, would otherwise have accrued to businesses in 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How much revenue per annum has this tax raised in Germany in recent years — money which, if federal law were to have been amended, would otherwise have accrued to businesses in 2004?

| 4. | Is the German Government justified in keeping the extra tax revenue raised due to failure to amend national legislation according to schedule and in using it, for example, to moderate the reforms which it proposes in social, financial and economic policy or to close the gap between its expected 2004 outturn and its Stability Pact target? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the German Government justified in keeping the extra tax revenue raised due to failure to amend national legislation according to schedule and in using it, for example, to moderate the reforms which it proposes in social, financial and economic policy or to close the gap between its expected 2004 outturn and its Stability Pact target?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, does this set a precedent for other Member States which have indeed amended their national legislation in time but which, by suspending the date of entry into force of the amendment — otherwise planned for 2004 — could yet secure an attractive source of revenue for themselves? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, does this set a precedent for other Member States which have indeed amended their national legislation in time but which, by suspending the date of entry into force of the amendment — otherwise planned for 2004 — could yet secure an attractive source of revenue for themselves?

Source: Financial Times Deutschland/Kompakt, 9.2.2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

| 1. | Member States were required to bring into force legislation implementing Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 (1), aimed at the elimination of taxes at source on payments of interest or royalties between associated companies, not later than 1 January 2004. They are obliged to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law that they have adopted in order to implement this Directive. The Commission has not yet received such a communication from Germany. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Member States were required to bring into force legislation implementing Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 (1), aimed at the elimination of taxes at source on payments of interest or royalties between associated companies, not later than 1 January 2004. They are obliged to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law that they have adopted in order to implement this Directive. The Commission has not yet received such a communication from Germany.

| 2. | Budgetary implications are considered during the discussion process before adopting the Directive. Once adopted, this argument cannot be used to justify non-implementation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Budgetary implications are considered during the discussion process before adopting the Directive. Once adopted, this argument cannot be used to justify non-implementation.

| 3. | The Commission does not have the detailed information requested. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission does not have the detailed information requested.

| 4. | Under national rules and procedures, companies should be able to reclaim any withholding taxes charged by the German authorities in breach of the Directive. Any revenues derived from this tax that are not challenged by taxpayers will form part of the general budget. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under national rules and procedures, companies should be able to reclaim any withholding taxes charged by the German authorities in breach of the Directive. Any revenues derived from this tax that are not challenged by taxpayers will form part of the general budget.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157, 26.6.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/624 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/624

---

(2004/C 84 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0549/04

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Subject:   Equal treatment in employment and occupation

Are EU Member States or service providers in breach of European legal provisions upholding individual liberty equal treatment irrespective of race or religion, or freedom of religious expression contained in:

| — | the European Union and/or European Community Treaties, especially Article 6 TEU and Article 13 TEC, |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Union and/or European Community Treaties, especially Article 6 TEU and Article 13 TEC,

| — | Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78/EC (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78/EC (1),

| — | the European Convention of Human Rights, especially Articles 9 and 10, |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention of Human Rights, especially Articles 9 and 10,

| — | the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 10 and 11, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 10 and 11,

if governments impose a ban on students or employees wearing religious or cultural symbols such as the Muslim hijab (headscarf), the Jewish kippa (skullcap), Sikh turban or Christian cross, or if service providers' people discriminate against people wearing such items?

If the answer to any of the above questions is affirmative, what action does the Commission intend to take to enforce European law?

Answer given by M. Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is monitoring the situation and has asked the Member States to inform it of specific developments on this matter.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (2) puts in place a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation. The Directive covers access to employment and vocational training. It does not cover ordinary primary or secondary education nor the provision of goods and services. The Member States had to transpose the Directive by 2 December 2003.

Whether or not measures to ban the wearing of religious symbols are deemed to constitute unlawful discrimination under the terms of Directive 2000/78/EC will depend on the concrete terms of the relevant legislation and on what justification is put forward by the Member States in question under the terms of the Directive.

However, Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC provides that a difference in treatment based on a characteristic related to the listed grounds of discrimination may not be discriminatory if ‘by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or by the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate’. Similarly, Article 2(b) (i) provides for possible justification for situations of indirect discrimination where ‘the provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessar’.

Directive 2000/78/EC also provides specifically that it ‘shall be without prejudice to the measures laid down in national law which are necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ (Article 2(5)). A Member State may only invoke this argument if its restrictions are laid down in national law.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/625 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/625

---

(2004/C 84 E/0698)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0550/04

by Mario Borghezio (Nl) to the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Subject:   Employment by the European Commission of the radical Islamic thinker Tariq Ramadan in the capacity of a ‘consultant’

Given that:

| — | according to newspaper reports, the Islamic thinker Tariq Ramadan is acting as a consultant to the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to newspaper reports, the Islamic thinker Tariq Ramadan is acting as a consultant to the European Commission;

| — | Tariq Ramadan is a leading proponent of radical Islam, to which he also has strong family ties, being the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a founding organisation of international Islamic fundamentalism; |
| --- | --- |

—

Tariq Ramadan is a leading proponent of radical Islam, to which he also has strong family ties, being the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a founding organisation of international Islamic fundamentalism;

| — | in 1995 Ramadan was declared ‘persona non grata’ by the French Republic, on the recommendation of the Ministry of the Interior in Paris, and seems, furthermore, to have had links in subsequent years with Al Qaeda elements operating in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 1995 Ramadan was declared ‘persona non grata’ by the French Republic, on the recommendation of the Ministry of the Interior in Paris, and seems, furthermore, to have had links in subsequent years with Al Qaeda elements operating in Europe;

| 1. | On what grounds has Tariq Ramadan been taken on as a consultant by the European Commission, with what type of contract of what duration, and how much is his monthly fee? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On what grounds has Tariq Ramadan been taken on as a consultant by the European Commission, with what type of contract of what duration, and how much is his monthly fee?

| 2. | Does the European Commission not intend to terminate this contract in the interests of European tax-payers ceasing to pay large sums of money for the services of a dangerous proponent of radical anti-European and anti-Western Islam? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the European Commission not intend to terminate this contract in the interests of European tax-payers ceasing to pay large sums of money for the services of a dangerous proponent of radical anti-European and anti-Western Islam?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that his questions have already been answered (see Written Questions E-2494/02 from Mr Camre (1) and P-2600/03 from Mr Turco (2)).

| 1. | However, the Commission wishes to take the opportunity provided by the Honourable Member to reiterate that Professor Ramadan is not, and never has been, employed by the Commission as a consultant. Like all the other members of the group of wise men on dialogue between peoples and cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean area, he received funds to cover his travel and subsistence expenses for the group meetings in which he took part.
  The amounts paid by the Commission were small and commensurate with the amounts normally refunded to participants in meetings of the group of wise men organised by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

However, the Commission wishes to take the opportunity provided by the Honourable Member to reiterate that Professor Ramadan is not, and never has been, employed by the Commission as a consultant. Like all the other members of the group of wise men on dialogue between peoples and cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean area, he received funds to cover his travel and subsistence expenses for the group meetings in which he took part.

The amounts paid by the Commission were small and commensurate with the amounts normally refunded to participants in meetings of the group of wise men organised by the Commission.

| 2. | There can therefore be no question of the Commission having to terminate a contract. There has never been any reason for any such contract to exist, either with Professor Ramadan or with the other members of the group.
  The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the membership of this group of wise men was designed to reflect the diversity of perspectives of inter-cultural dialogue in the EU and the Mediterranean basin. The Commission plans to continue working along these lines because it believes that its ability to make a clear diagnosis as a prelude to action which is in the common interest of the EU as a whole and of its Member States is largely contingent on a wide range of viewpoints and analyses being heard.
  The Commission would also stress that the work of the group of wise men took place in full accordance with the principles on which the European Union is based and with the requirements which dialogue imposes. Each member of the group, without exception or restriction, complied with this common rule by approving and signing a report specifically based on the principles of ‘respect for the Other’, ‘equality at all levels’, ‘freedom of conscience, absolute and without restriction of any kind’, ‘solidarity’ and ‘mutual knowledge’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There can therefore be no question of the Commission having to terminate a contract. There has never been any reason for any such contract to exist, either with Professor Ramadan or with the other members of the group.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the membership of this group of wise men was designed to reflect the diversity of perspectives of inter-cultural dialogue in the EU and the Mediterranean basin. The Commission plans to continue working along these lines because it believes that its ability to make a clear diagnosis as a prelude to action which is in the common interest of the EU as a whole and of its Member States is largely contingent on a wide range of viewpoints and analyses being heard.

The Commission would also stress that the work of the group of wise men took place in full accordance with the principles on which the European Union is based and with the requirements which dialogue imposes. Each member of the group, without exception or restriction, complied with this common rule by approving and signing a report specifically based on the principles of ‘respect for the Other’, ‘equality at all levels’, ‘freedom of conscience, absolute and without restriction of any kind’, ‘solidarity’ and ‘mutual knowledge’.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 117.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/626 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/626

---

(2004/C 84 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/1070, regarding the failure of Irish legislation to take sufficient account of sensitive sites or of the cumulative effects of smaller individual projects which, when added together, have a significant impact within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)?

What action has the Commission taken, or is it considering taking on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The matter to which the Honourable Member makes reference relates to a decision by the Commission to refer Ireland to the Court of Justice for non-respect of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. One of the issues of concern related to the approach of the Irish authorities to provisions of Irish legislation that allow for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects belonging to Annex II of the Directive that fall below thresholds for mandatory EIA set in the Irish legislation. These provisions for sub-threshold EIA are important in order to ensure that sufficient account is taken of smaller projects that may affect sensitive sites or that may, when combined with other similar projects, give rise to significant environmental effects. The Commission was not convinced that adequate administrative arrangements had been made to give a real meaning to these provisions, with the result that environmentally significant sub-threshold projects might be approved without prior EIA. In September 2003, the Irish authorities sent the Commission a copy of new administrative guidance on applying the relevant provisions of the Irish legislation. This guidance was published in August 2003 (3). To allow an examination of this guidance, the Commission later decided to suspend the decision to refer Ireland to the Court. The Commission is due to make a further decision on the matter during 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3)  ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for Consent Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development’, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, August 2003, ISBN 0-7557-1657-4.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/626 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/626

---

(2004/C 84 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Right to collective action

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(e) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to define at European level the right to take collective action, particularly the right to strike?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Revision of pregnant workers directive

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(g) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission come forward with proposals to amend Directive 92/85/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in the spirit of the proposals contained in the European Parliament's resolution (A5-0155/2000 (2)) of 6 July 2000, particularly concerning the duration of maternity leave?

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 121, 24.4.2001, p. 473.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0702)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Paid paternity leave

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 10 of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive, based on Article 141(3) of the Treaty, on paid paternity leave?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0703)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0555/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Illiteracy and social exclusion

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(m) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to produce a Green Paper on illiteracy and social exclusion?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0556/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Definition of criteria for the recognition of disabilities

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(h) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to define criteria for the recognition of disabilities and adopt an action plan aimed at effective prevention of musculoskeletal injuries at work?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/628 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/628

---

(2004/C 84 E/0705)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Directive on social protection on new forms of employment

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(f) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to draft a Directive on social protection for new forms of employment?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/628 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/628

---

(2004/C 84 E/0706)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Directive on individual dismissals

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(d) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5-TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to draft a Directive on individual dismissals?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0552/04, E-0553/04, E-0554/04, E-0555/04, E-0556/04, E-0557/04 and E-0558/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The Social Policy Agenda provides the roadmap for action in the fields of employment and social policy covering the period 2000-2005. It is based on the Commission Communication (1) and the political orientations adopted by the Nice European Council of December 2000.

In particular, further to the request by the Parliament, the Commission presents annually an overview of achievements in a scoreboard, outlining the state of play with regard to the implementation of the agenda. This allows a precise monitoring of initiatives and enhances transparency on policy action.

In this context, the Parliament called in its resolution of 3 September 2003 (TA(2003)369) upon the Commission to take action on a wide number of specific requests, several of which the Commission has addressed in the meantime.

With respect to the specific points identified by the Honourable Member, the position of the Commission is as follows:

| — | As to a new initiative called for by the Parliament to define at European level the right to take collective action, particularly the right to strike, the Commission wishes to reiterate that the EC Treaty specifies in Article 137-5 that the social provisions of Article 137 of the EC Treaty do not apply to the right to strike. |
| --- | --- |

—

As to a new initiative called for by the Parliament to define at European level the right to take collective action, particularly the right to strike, the Commission wishes to reiterate that the EC Treaty specifies in Article 137-5 that the social provisions of Article 137 of the EC Treaty do not apply to the right to strike.

| — | As to the request for a proposal of a Directive on individual dismissals, the Social Policy Agenda foresees already that the topic of individual dismissal should start being examined in 2004. The Commission is preparing therefore the launch of a comparative study on this issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

As to the request for a proposal of a Directive on individual dismissals, the Social Policy Agenda foresees already that the topic of individual dismissal should start being examined in 2004. The Commission is preparing therefore the launch of a comparative study on this issue.

| — | With regards to the revision of the pregnant workers' Directive (2) concerning the duration of maternity leave, the Commission does not intend to propose to revise the Directive in this sense. Member States may, however, provide for longer periods of maternity leave as the Directive sets minimum requirements only. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regards to the revision of the pregnant workers' Directive (2) concerning the duration of maternity leave, the Commission does not intend to propose to revise the Directive in this sense. Member States may, however, provide for longer periods of maternity leave as the Directive sets minimum requirements only.

| — | The issue of paternity leave is addressed by Directive 2002/73/EC (3) (amending Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women): recital 13 to this Directive refers to the Resolution of 29 June 2000, which encouraged the Member States to consider examining the scope for their respective legal systems to grant working men an individual and untransferable right to paternity leave, while maintaining their rights relating to employment. The recital stresses that it is for the Member States to determine whether or not to grant such a right and also to determine any conditions, other than dismissal and return to work, which are outside the scope of this Directive. The new Article 2(7) (of Directive 76/207/EEC as introduced by Directive 2002/73/EC) provides that the Directive shall be ‘without prejudice to the right of Member States to recognise distinct rights to paternity and/or adoption leave’. The Commission does not at present envisage new proposals in this area. |
| --- | --- |

—

The issue of paternity leave is addressed by Directive 2002/73/EC (3) (amending Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women): recital 13 to this Directive refers to the Resolution of 29 June 2000, which encouraged the Member States to consider examining the scope for their respective legal systems to grant working men an individual and untransferable right to paternity leave, while maintaining their rights relating to employment. The recital stresses that it is for the Member States to determine whether or not to grant such a right and also to determine any conditions, other than dismissal and return to work, which are outside the scope of this Directive. The new Article 2(7) (of Directive 76/207/EEC as introduced by Directive 2002/73/EC) provides that the Directive shall be ‘without prejudice to the right of Member States to recognise distinct rights to paternity and/or adoption leave’. The Commission does not at present envisage new proposals in this area.

| — | As to work on illiteracy and social exclusion, the Commission has integrated these points within both its education and training agenda as well as in the social inclusion process. There is a significant body of results of analysis available, and the priority is given to transpose this knowledge into concrete policy measures through the existing instruments. |
| --- | --- |

—

As to work on illiteracy and social exclusion, the Commission has integrated these points within both its education and training agenda as well as in the social inclusion process. There is a significant body of results of analysis available, and the priority is given to transpose this knowledge into concrete policy measures through the existing instruments.

| — | On the call for a Directive on social protection for new forms of work, the Commission wishes to highlight that within the open method of co-ordination on social protection the issue of social protection with regards to new forms of work is being addressed. This also contributes to the follow-up to the Directives on part-time work (4) and fixed-term work (5), both stemming from agreements by the social partners, in which the issue of developing social protection systems capable to adapting to new patterns of work and of providing appropriate protection to people engaged in such work was highlighted as a matter to be addressed by the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the call for a Directive on social protection for new forms of work, the Commission wishes to highlight that within the open method of co-ordination on social protection the issue of social protection with regards to new forms of work is being addressed. This also contributes to the follow-up to the Directives on part-time work (4) and fixed-term work (5), both stemming from agreements by the social partners, in which the issue of developing social protection systems capable to adapting to new patterns of work and of providing appropriate protection to people engaged in such work was highlighted as a matter to be addressed by the Member States.

| — | As to musculoskeletal injuries at work, the Commission has incorporated the theme of new occupational risks into the occupational health and safety strategy for the period 2002-2006 as a policy priority. Specific action on musculoskeletal injuries is planned to be launched in 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

As to musculoskeletal injuries at work, the Commission has incorporated the theme of new occupational risks into the occupational health and safety strategy for the period 2002-2006 as a policy priority. Specific action on musculoskeletal injuries is planned to be launched in 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2000)379.

(2)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC, OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.

(3)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, OJ L 269, 5.10.2002.

(4)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, OJ C 14, 20.1.1998.

(5)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/629

---

(2004/C 84 E/0707)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Music censorship in China

The Commission is apparently ready to upgrade its policy of cultural cooperation with the People's Republic of China under the Unesco General Assembly negotiations aimed at the creation of an international instrument for the preservation of cultural diversity, as Commissioner Reding stated to the House during the debate on the Prets report last January 2004 in Strasbourg.

It would appear that the rock star David Bowie's concert at the Hong Kong Exhibition and Entertainment Centre next month is under threat because of his drummer's links to the Falun Gong movement.

A spokeswoman for the Hong Kong Association of Falun Gong has declared: ‘I am confident that the authorities in Hong Kong will still allow freedom of expression ...’, but the Hong Kong Immigration Department has refused to comment on the rumours and has not yet confirmed its authorisation.

| 1. | What information does the Commission have about this issue? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What information does the Commission have about this issue?

| 2. | How does the Commission intend to approach the Chinese authorities in order to ensure that Mr Bowie's professional artistic activities will not be subject to the same sort of political censorship as that suffered by the Falun Gong movement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the Commission intend to approach the Chinese authorities in order to ensure that Mr Bowie's professional artistic activities will not be subject to the same sort of political censorship as that suffered by the Falun Gong movement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The concert to which the Honourable Member refers was held in Hong Kong on Sunday 14 March. David Bowie's drummer, Mr Sterling Campbell, took part as planned.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/630 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/630

---

(2004/C 84 E/0708)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0570/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Commission officials on leave

According to the answer to my Written Question E-3061/02 (1), there were over 566 officials on leave for personal reasons on 10 December 2002. A closer look at the circumstances of 400 officials showed that around 10 % are otherwise employed.

| 1. | Can the Commission give an idea of how many officials were definitely on personal leave at the end of 2003 and how many of them were otherwise employed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission give an idea of how many officials were definitely on personal leave at the end of 2003 and how many of them were otherwise employed?

| 2. | What measures has the Commission taken to prevent conflicts of interests among EU officials who are on leave for personal reasons, yet are actively employed during this time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures has the Commission taken to prevent conflicts of interests among EU officials who are on leave for personal reasons, yet are actively employed during this time?

| 3. | Has the firm mentioned in the Agence Europe report of 30 September 2002, GPlus Europe, withdrawn definitively from the contract as part of the ASCII Consortium or does it in some way continue to be involved in carrying out the contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the firm mentioned in the Agence Europe report of 30 September 2002, GPlus Europe, withdrawn definitively from the contract as part of the ASCII Consortium or does it in some way continue to be involved in carrying out the contract?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

| 1. | As at 31 December 2003, 532 officials were on leave on personal grounds. Of these, 18 % indicated another professional activity as the reason for this leave. It should be noted that, provided that appropriate permission is obtained, it is entirely compatible with provisions for leave on personal grounds for an official to undertake other work — indeed it may be in the interests of the official to broaden his or her professional experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As at 31 December 2003, 532 officials were on leave on personal grounds. Of these, 18 % indicated another professional activity as the reason for this leave. It should be noted that, provided that appropriate permission is obtained, it is entirely compatible with provisions for leave on personal grounds for an official to undertake other work — indeed it may be in the interests of the official to broaden his or her professional experience.

| 2. | As the Commission reported in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3061/02, officials on such leave continue to be subject to the provisions of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations which require officials to obtain permission before engaging in any outside activity, and which allow for refusal of permission, or imposition of conditions, where it is considered that the activity would otherwise be ‘detrimental to the work of the Communities’. The Commission would consider conflict of interest as being ‘detrimental’ to the Community, and would thus take appropriate action to prevent such conflicts. Meanwhile, Article 17 requires officials — whether in activity or on leave on personal grounds — not to disclose to unauthorised persons ‘information not already made public’. Any official working in the private sector and making use of such privileged information would be considered to have infringed this obligation and would thus be at risk of disciplinary proceedings.
  Until 2003, the examination of the files related to outside activity was done by the Directorate-General to which the official belonged, or by the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration, depending on his or her grade. In order to reinforce that control, in 2003 the Commission introduced a procedure involving both Directorates-General. A website on the Personnel and Administration Directorate General Intranet was created on 15 December 2003 in order to improve officials' access to information and rules related to leave on personal grounds. Furthermore, the application forms to be filled in when requesting such leave have been modified to allow a better analysis of the request from the official.
  Further decisions on relevant matters are being prepared by the Commission in the light of the amendments made to the Staff Regulations which enter into force on 1 May 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As the Commission reported in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3061/02, officials on such leave continue to be subject to the provisions of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations which require officials to obtain permission before engaging in any outside activity, and which allow for refusal of permission, or imposition of conditions, where it is considered that the activity would otherwise be ‘detrimental to the work of the Communities’. The Commission would consider conflict of interest as being ‘detrimental’ to the Community, and would thus take appropriate action to prevent such conflicts. Meanwhile, Article 17 requires officials — whether in activity or on leave on personal grounds — not to disclose to unauthorised persons ‘information not already made public’. Any official working in the private sector and making use of such privileged information would be considered to have infringed this obligation and would thus be at risk of disciplinary proceedings.

Until 2003, the examination of the files related to outside activity was done by the Directorate-General to which the official belonged, or by the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration, depending on his or her grade. In order to reinforce that control, in 2003 the Commission introduced a procedure involving both Directorates-General. A website on the Personnel and Administration Directorate General Intranet was created on 15 December 2003 in order to improve officials' access to information and rules related to leave on personal grounds. Furthermore, the application forms to be filled in when requesting such leave have been modified to allow a better analysis of the request from the official.

Further decisions on relevant matters are being prepared by the Commission in the light of the amendments made to the Staff Regulations which enter into force on 1 May 2004.

| 3. | The presence of an official on leave for personal grounds within G-Plus, the company subcontracted by ASCII, led to the suspension of the Europa contract on 27 September 2002 so that an examination could take place in the light of the problems of perception that had arisen.
  The Honourable Member may wish to note that on 9 October 2002 G-Plus informed the Commission of its decision to withdraw from the consortium established by ASCII for the implementation of the framework contract. The Commission subsequently re-activated its contract with ASCII. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The presence of an official on leave for personal grounds within G-Plus, the company subcontracted by ASCII, led to the suspension of the Europa contract on 27 September 2002 so that an examination could take place in the light of the problems of perception that had arisen.

The Honourable Member may wish to note that on 9 October 2002 G-Plus informed the Commission of its decision to withdraw from the consortium established by ASCII for the implementation of the framework contract. The Commission subsequently re-activated its contract with ASCII.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 83.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/631 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/631

---

(2004/C 84 E/0709)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/04

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Electioneering activities of Romano Prodi

Four left-wing parties are due to contest the European elections in Italy jointly under the ‘Prodi List’. Press reports suggest that the President of the Commission will not be standing himself on this list but will be playing an active part in the election campaign. He is reportedly involved in the selection of candidates. It would in fact be unlikely that the President of the Commission would lend his name to the list without being closely involved in the whole campaign.

Although these new party political activities will undoubtedly take up a great deal of his time, the Commission President has stated that he will remain in office until October.

Does Mr Prodi regard the office of President of the European Commission as a full-time job?

How much time does he think he will be spending each week on the election campaign in Italy?

Does the Commission consider it desirable for its members to be actively involved in election campaigns?

What arrangements have been made within the Commission? Who will take over Mr Prodi's duties in his absence?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

As the Commission has pointed out on a number of occasions in response to written and oral questions from MEPs, the Members of the Commission are politicians exercising a political function and, provided that they perform the duties incumbent, they remain free to express their personal views quite independently and on their own responsibility, as well as to be a member of a political party.

This having been made clear, Mr Prodi has confirmed that he does not intend to stand as a candidate in the election or take an active part in the election campaign. As in the past, he will continue to devote all his energy to his responsibilities as President of the Commission until the end of his term of office.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/632 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/632

---

(2004/C 84 E/0710)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/04

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Relationships between the media and recording companies

Can the Commission clarify its position with regard to the relationship that broadcasters have with record companies? It is felt by many smaller record companies that they are unfairly treated by radio and TV companies in comparison to the bigger record companies and are therefore squeezed out of the market.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission services in charge of competition policy have dedicated significant attention to European music markets, particularly over these past years when digital technology and media convergence seemed to push vigorously towards heavy concentration amid the major players. These issues were raised with particular emphasis in 2000 during the AOL/Time Warner merger proceedings and the EMI/Time Warner attempted merger. In the ongoing merger proceedings of the global recorded music businesses of Germany's Bertelsmann AG and Japan's Sony Corp the Commission has decided to open a full investigation into the proposed merger due to concerns that the transaction might create or strengthen a collective dominant position of the major record companies in the markets for recorded music. In the course of the investigation, the Commission will also investigate further competition concerns related to the vertical integration of the parent companies in other markets, such as the possible implications of the notified joint-venture on Bertelsmann's activities in the broadcasting sector (1).

The activity of the Commission in the field of competition policy does not only cover mergers but also restrictive practices and agreements such as the ones referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to intervene in unregulated markets such as the music business, however, the Commission requires a solid factual basis allowing it to properly assess claimed distortions in the functioning of the markets. Also, the jurisdiction of the Commission under Community competition law only exists where an appreciable effect on trade between Member States is shown.

So far, the Commission did not come across factual evidence allowing it to suppose the existence of restrictive practices in the relationship between different types of record companies and broadcasters such as to have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States.

---

(1)  The press release is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/04/200|0|RAPID&lg=EN

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/633 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/633

---

(2004/C 84 E/0711)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/04

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Appointment and promotion of senior Commission officials

According to official bulletins issued by the main trade unions representing staff at the Commission, the latter is planning to appoint both officials from the Commissioners' offices and political advisers to the President (be they internal or external to the Commission) to top posts within the directorates-general, thereby enabling them (through a misuse of the procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning external recruitment) to make a ‘career jump’ of a kind which is not possible under the normal promotion procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations. This would be injurious to the Commission's staff, who are required to follow the standard procedure.

Such a policy could also be seen as an attempt by the Commission President and the outgoing Commissioners to move — without justification — into new spheres of power within the Commisssion structure, in blatant disregard for the need for sufficient room to be left for the acceding countries and for the new Commission (which will assume office in November 2004) to be allowed to appoint the heads of its directorates-general itself. It should be borne in mind that the current Commission has already replaced 50 of the 60 or so directors-general and 140 of the 200-odd directors.

In the light of the above, will the Commission consider:

| 1. | informing the staff and their representatives of the action it intends to take pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations and — in any event — not applying that article for the benefit of Commissioner office staff and the President's political advisers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

informing the staff and their representatives of the action it intends to take pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations and — in any event — not applying that article for the benefit of Commissioner office staff and the President's political advisers?

| 2. | not recruiting staff from outside until it has exhausted the possibility of recruiting from within its own ranks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

not recruiting staff from outside until it has exhausted the possibility of recruiting from within its own ranks?

| 3. | creating new posts for officials from the acceding countries, so as not to frustrate the legitimate expectations of officials who are already in service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

creating new posts for officials from the acceding countries, so as not to frustrate the legitimate expectations of officials who are already in service?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

| 1. | In preparation for the forthcoming enlargement and for implementation of the new Staff Regulations a Communication of 18 February 2004 (1) set out the Commission's intentions relating to the appointment of senior officials. That Communication already provides answers to several of the points raised in the Honourable Members' question.
  In addition, the main points of this Communication were the subject of a press release (2) and were also immediately notified to staff on the Commission's intranet. The Commission can confirm that, to provide further information to the staff and its representatives, procedures for filling vacant posts will be notified in advance in line with the regulatory provisions. This applies to all procedures for filling vacant posts under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations. All of the vacancy notice publication provisions will continue to be observed in full.
  Staff serving in Commissioners' offices will be considered for any vacant post only if they meet the requirements stipulated in the relevant vacancy notice. They will therefore not be treated differently from any other official (in the case of a procedure under Article 29(1)) or qualified citizen of the Union (if the vacancy notice is also published for the purposes of an Article 29(2) procedure). It would of course be illegal for the Commission to exclude someone from a selection procedure merely because he or she was working in a Commissioner's office.
  The Commission attaches great importance to selection procedures that, through their rigour and transparency, give clear indications as to who appear to be the best-qualified candidates. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In preparation for the forthcoming enlargement and for implementation of the new Staff Regulations a Communication of 18 February 2004 (1) set out the Commission's intentions relating to the appointment of senior officials. That Communication already provides answers to several of the points raised in the Honourable Members' question.

In addition, the main points of this Communication were the subject of a press release (2) and were also immediately notified to staff on the Commission's intranet. The Commission can confirm that, to provide further information to the staff and its representatives, procedures for filling vacant posts will be notified in advance in line with the regulatory provisions. This applies to all procedures for filling vacant posts under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations. All of the vacancy notice publication provisions will continue to be observed in full.

Staff serving in Commissioners' offices will be considered for any vacant post only if they meet the requirements stipulated in the relevant vacancy notice. They will therefore not be treated differently from any other official (in the case of a procedure under Article 29(1)) or qualified citizen of the Union (if the vacancy notice is also published for the purposes of an Article 29(2) procedure). It would of course be illegal for the Commission to exclude someone from a selection procedure merely because he or she was working in a Commissioner's office.

The Commission attaches great importance to selection procedures that, through their rigour and transparency, give clear indications as to who appear to be the best-qualified candidates.

| 2. | Posts can be filled under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations only if the possibilities for internal recruitment, i.e. from the European Institutions, have been fully assessed and the Commission confirms that this requirement will continue to be scrupulously observed. Simultaneous publication both internally (Article 29(1)) and externally (Article 29(2)) is exceptional and done periodically solely in the interests of not delaying the recruitment procedure when there is a significant probability that suitable candidates are to be found outside the Institution (for example when specialised profiles are required). Using such a facility does not compromise adherence to the principle that the appointing authority (i.e. the Commission) examines the internal applications before the external applications. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Posts can be filled under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations only if the possibilities for internal recruitment, i.e. from the European Institutions, have been fully assessed and the Commission confirms that this requirement will continue to be scrupulously observed. Simultaneous publication both internally (Article 29(1)) and externally (Article 29(2)) is exceptional and done periodically solely in the interests of not delaying the recruitment procedure when there is a significant probability that suitable candidates are to be found outside the Institution (for example when specialised profiles are required). Using such a facility does not compromise adherence to the principle that the appointing authority (i.e. the Commission) examines the internal applications before the external applications.

| 3. | In its Communication of 18 February 2004, the Commission indicated the numbers and nature of the Al, A2 and middle management posts to be reserved for nationals of the new Member States. Additional posts have been granted by the budget authority and the expectations of serving officials will, consequently, not be negatively affected.
  The Commission has always upheld the principle of reserving for nationals of acceding countries a number of posts that is the same as the additional number received by the Institution so that post-enlargement needs can be met. This approach allows smooth integration of officials from the new Member States and ensures that serving officials are not disadvantaged. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In its Communication of 18 February 2004, the Commission indicated the numbers and nature of the Al, A2 and middle management posts to be reserved for nationals of the new Member States. Additional posts have been granted by the budget authority and the expectations of serving officials will, consequently, not be negatively affected.

The Commission has always upheld the principle of reserving for nationals of acceding countries a number of posts that is the same as the additional number received by the Institution so that post-enlargement needs can be met. This approach allows smooth integration of officials from the new Member States and ensures that serving officials are not disadvantaged.

---

(1)  SEC(2004)217/2.

(2)  IP/04/2009.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/634 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/634

---

(2004/C 84 E/0712)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Enlargement of an airport in the administrative and political capital of Spain: use of Cohesion Fund monies granted to Spain for extending infrastructure in Madrid

The Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, has just inaugurated the civil engineering works to enlarge Madrid airport. There will be a new terminal, and new runways. The final budget is EUR 2 440 million, and the new facilities will be operational in 2005. The Spanish Government is seeking to make this airport one of the largest and most attractive in Europe. This extraordinary amount of investment is being made in an airport which, today, already centralises and even monopolises Spanish air traffic. This new investment highlights once again the fact that the Spanish capital receives economic benefits from the Spanish Government on such a scale that the business world, political and economic decision-making, and even Spain's entire land and air traffic are concentrated in it.

Does the Commission know whether money from the Community Cohesion Fund is being used in extending the airport? If so, what percentage of the monies from the Cohesion Fund assigned to the Spanish State has been or will be used in this airport? More generally, what percentage of grants to Spain from the Cohesion Fund have been or are scheduled to be used within the Madrid autonomous community?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

So far the only Madrid-Barajas Airport extension project that we have approved (by a decision of 24 December 2002) is for construction of the INTRA automated people mover system for the new terminal area. The eligible costs are EUR 98 040 921 and the contribution from the Fund is EUR 41 177 186 (42 %). No part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund has been granted for the airport under the single programming document Objective 2 Madrid 2000-2006.

The national authorities are responsible for selecting and submitting projects for Cohesion Fund part-financing to us. We examine them using the criteria set in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1). These criteria do not include location. In the Official Journal references have been given for the decisions for 2000 (2), 2001 (3) and 2002 (4) granting Cohesion Fund assistance to Spain. Those for 2003 will be published this year.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(2)  OJ C 361, 17.12.2001.

(3)  OJ C 126, 28.5.2002.

(4)  OJ C 123, 24.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/635 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/635

---

(2004/C 84 E/0713)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/04

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Aid to stud farms

What is the Commission's position on Irish state aid to stud farms? In Ireland, there is no tax on ‘nomination fees’ which a stud farm owner receives when a stallion impregnates a mare. The opposite is the case in Denmark, which gives Irish stud farms a competitive advantage over the other Member States.

Will the Commission say whether Irish practice in this respect is consistent with EU competition and state aid rules?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/635 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/635

---

(2004/C 84 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Irish stud farms

Would the Commission comment on the issue of tax breaks given by the Irish Government to stud farms? Each year Irish stud farms earn from the ‘nomination fees’ that an owner receives when a stallion impregnates a mare, and yet pay nothing in tax. This gives them a major advantage over British stud farms, resulting in lost revenue and jobs in the UK.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0592/04 and E-0610/04

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint in this matter and is investigating the issue. Before the investigation has been finalized, the Commission is not in a position to indicate whether the scheme is compatible with the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/636

---

(2004/C 84 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Seasonal work

The freedom of movement within the EU has been providing EU citizens looking for work with a great degree of mobility. Today thousands of workers emigrate in order to take advantage of job shortages in seasonal work sectors, particularly in agriculture.

Through the press and workers' associations, I frequently hear of situations in which seasonal workers have been recruited under false pretences and find themselves facing unacceptable working and living conditions, without any legal or social protection.

Given that this situation has existed for many years, is there any Community legislation to regulate work of this kind? What measures has the Commission been taking or does it intend to take to protect the rights and interests of seasonal workers?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Community legislation governing working conditions applies in the same way to seasonal workers as to other workers.

Depending on the precise context in which a seasonal worker is employed, he will be covered either by the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1), or by Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/636

---

(2004/C 84 E/0716)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Support for Portuguese students studying for a master's degree

In Portugal and in other EU countries, the European master's degree in Social Sciences and Education is being developed under the heading of European social inclusion prospects.

This pioneering scheme, which involves seven universities from Portugal, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Hungary and Romania, is supported by the Socrates programme.

The way in which the modules are drawn up requires the mobility of students and teachers between the universities of the different countries, but without including specific subsidies for the students. De facto mobility is only guaranteed for teachers. But the fact is that the different circumstances obtaining in each country make it practically impossible for Portuguese students to take modules at other universities, where the master's degree is even free of charge, unlike Portugal, where it is extremely expensive, despite the difficult economic and social situation of most Portuguese families and indeed of the universities themselves.

Will the Commission inform me as to possible measures and supports for the mobility of students taking this master's degree, with specific reference to the situation in Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Erasmus rules on mobility for students and teachers who undertake part of their studies abroad apply not only to degree courses but also to Master's courses.

The Honourable Member refers to the circumstances of Portuguese students studying for a Master's degree organised by several European universities, including a university in Portugal. In this case we need to know whether the university in question is an Erasmus Charter institution, a status conferred on universities which fulfil the conditions for participating in the Socrates/Erasmus programme. If it is, these students should be eligible for an Erasmus grant to undertake part of their studies abroad.

In order to be able to give a more precise answer concerning this case, the Commission would need further information on the universities concerned, and perhaps the title and number of the project.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/637 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/637

---

(2004/C 84 E/0717)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Burma

Would the Commission give details of its position on Burma's ‘Road Map’ for democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the roadmap for the transition to democracy presented by Prime Minister Khin Nyunt in August 2003.

While the Commission appreciates that the Burmese Government has been willing to present its plans for the transition to democracy, there are aspects which are not mentioned in the Roadmap that the Commission views as key requisites for achieving lasting national reconciliation. The first of these requisites is that all legitimate stakeholders, political parties and ethnic nationalities, should be included in the political process.

This calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all National League for Democracy (NLD) members, the release of political prisoners and freedom for all political groups and parties to exercise their political activities, without preconditions.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/637 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/637

---

(2004/C 84 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0614/04

by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the 280-employee DHL site at Blanc Mesnil (France)

At the start of 2004, news was leaked to the 280 employees of the small-package carrier DHL France (a subsidiary of the European consortium Deutsche Post World Net [DPWN]) that the DHL site at Blanc Mesnil was to close and that a total of 1 200 jobs at several centres in France would be lost.

Only after the workers went on strike at the end of January 2004 did the company managers confirm their intentions by means of a supposedly ‘confidential’ circular. It would appear that DPWN has drawn up a job-abolition and collective-redundancy plan which contravenes Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on European works councils, which stipulates that ‘certain decisions having a significant effect on the interests of employees must be the subject of information and consultation of the employees’ appointed representatives as soon as possible. The subsidiary requirements specify that ‘where there are exceptional circumstances affecting the employees’ interests to a considerable extent, particularly in the event of relocations, the closure of establishments or undertakings or collective redundancies, the select committee or, where no such committee exists, the European Works Council shall have the right to be informed. Pursuant to Council Directive 98/59/EC (2) on collective redundancies, ‘where an employer is contemplating collective redundancies, he shall begin consultations with the workers’ representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement', ‘[the] consultations shall, at least, cover ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected, and of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant’, ‘employers shall notify the competent public authority in writing of any projected collective redundancies’, and ‘employers shall forward to the workers’ representatives a copy of the notification.'

Pursuant to Directive 2002/14/EC (3) of 11 March 2002, which is currently being transposed, ‘timely information and consultation is a prerequisite for the success of the restructuring and adaptation of undertakings’, and ‘information shall be given at such time, in such fashion and with such content as are appropriate to enable, in particular, employees’ representatives to conduct an adequate study and, where necessary, prepare for consultation. The Directives quoted provide for sanctions to be imposed on companies which do not honour their obligations vis-à-vis their workers.

What action is the Commission intending to take with regard to the Member States concerned (France and Germany, where the consortium has its headquarters) in order ensure that those States genuinely force DPWN to comply with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, several Community Directives lay down procedures for informing and for consulting workers' representatives which may be applicable in the event of closures of companies, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning collective redundancies (4), and Council Directive 94/45/EC, of 22 September 1994, on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (5). Another Directive was also adopted on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council with the aim of supplementing Community arrangements governing this matter (Directive 2002/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community — Joint declaration of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (6)). The first two Directives were transposed into the national laws of the Member States (the third having to be transposed only by 23 March 2005).

It is the responsibility of the Member States to transpose and implement the above Directives. In the first place, it is up to the national authorities to ensure that the Directives are applied correctly and to provide for administrative and judicial remedies in national legislation. It is also the duty of the Commission, in its capacity as the guardian of the Treaty, to take any steps it deems appropriate, including those provided for under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the above provisions are complied with.

The information submitted by the Honourable Member relates to the practical implementation of the national legislation transposing the Directives mentioned in this written question. Monitoring and supervision of implementation are, in the first place, the responsibility of the authorities (including the judicial authorities) of the Member States concerned. There is no indication that judicial and/or administrative proceedings have been initiated by the workers of the company or their representatives in order to enforce the obligations laid down by the above Directives.

The Commission has, moreover, not received any complaint with regard to this matter and has no information suggesting that any infringement of these Directives has occurred.

---

(1)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(2)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.

(4)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(5)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(6)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/639 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/639

---

(2004/C 84 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Damage caused by extreme weather conditions in Greece

Heavy snowfall and exceptionally low temperatures have caused widespread serious and damage to plant and stockbreeding production, to stocks of plants and animals and to agricultural installations (greenhouses, livestock housing, etc.) in many parts of Greece.

Given that producers' incomes and the means of production have been very badly affected, will the Commission say:

| 1. | Will it fund actions to compensate producers for loss of income and the replacement of the means of productions which have been affected? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will it fund actions to compensate producers for loss of income and the replacement of the means of productions which have been affected?

| 2. | What scope is there for using funds from the Operational Programme on agricultural development 2000-2006 or reserves from the third CSF? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What scope is there for using funds from the Operational Programme on agricultural development 2000-2006 or reserves from the third CSF?

| 3. | Will it approve a national programme for granting aid, if requested to do so by Greece? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will it approve a national programme for granting aid, if requested to do so by Greece?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission has not yet received detailed information from Greece concerning the impact on agriculture caused by the adverse weather conditions that affected the Member State during the month of February 2004. Depending on the magnitude of this damage, Community solidarity funds may be available to help rural areas overcome the problems they are facing as soon as possible and to rebuild production potential. In addition, if these adverse weather conditions have destroyed the production potential, European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) assistance may be possible inside of the financial allocation for Greece for the programming period 2000-2006 and more specifically through the implementation of the ‘National Operational Programme — Rural Development (2000-2006)’. However, it should be underlined that for the moment there are no funds available and consequently a reprogramming procedure will be necessary. The Greek authorities are entitled to submit a request to redefine the programming priorities and the corresponding financial allocations within the context of the current mid-term review. It should be emphasised that EAGGF intervention will be limited to reconstituting production potential and does not cover the income losses which are not eligible.

It should be noted that the allocation of the performance and programming reserves of the 3rd EU — Greece Community Support Framework have already been executed at national level, providing for, among other programmes, the financial reinforcement of the ‘National Operational Programme — Rural Development (2000-2006)’. It is up to the Ministry of Agriculture to propose reallocating of necessary funds to the appropriate section of the programme during the current mid-term review.

The Commission will be able to approve a national aid programme notified to it under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty provided all relevant conditions stipulated in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agriculture Sector are met.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/640 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/640

---

(2004/C 84 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/04

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Ban on entering Russia for Danish journalist

The Danish journalist, Vibeke Sperling, who works for the daily newspaper Politiken, has been refused an entry visa into Russia without any justification. This is a serious matter which raises issues of principle concerning the standards that the EU requires of its partners, including Russia.

Will the Commission, therefore, say whether it has contemplated raising such problems of freedom of the press in the context of the forthcoming negotiations with Russia on the cooperation agreement between the EU and Russia, and making clear to Russia that such infringements of fundamental freedoms are not acceptable to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is concerned at reports of infringements of the freedom of the press in Russia and is closely following developments, including with regard to the specific case of Ms Sperling. Although the decision to grant a visa or not is the prerogative of Russia, it is most regrettable that Russia has chosen to act in a restrictive and opaque manner in this case. The Commission recalls the public declaration of concern on media freedom issued by the EU in July 2003.

In its recent Communication on relations with Russia (1), the Commission underlined the need for the EU to hold an open and frank dialogue, in order to insist that Russia respect the values to which it is committed as a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe, including respect for human rights and media freedom. These issues are frequently raised in the political dialogue which the EU holds with the Russian authorities.

The EU's activity is not limited to political dialogue. In view of its concerns on media freedom, the Commission will continue to support the development of an independent and pluralistic media in Russia, including via projects funded under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

The Commission does not see this issue as linked to the extension of the EU/Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to the ten acceding Member States, which is a purely technical procedure.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 106 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/640 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/640

---

(2004/C 84 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments as direct landings of fishery products when they do not fulfil that condition under current Community rules, and even exempting certain products from compulsory veterinary checks (and, consequently, from the corresponding charges) when these rules contain no provision for doing so. The SGSEV is also allowing the captains of fishing vessels, an interested party in the trade transaction, to sign not just a simple declaration but also health certificates on behalf of the competent authority in the country of origin.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Directive 97/78/EC (2) laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, Directive 91/493/EEC (3) laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, Decision 93/13/EEC (4) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (5)) laying down the procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products from third countries and Regulation (EC) No 1093/94 (6) setting the terms under which fishing vessels of a third country may land directly and market their catches at Community ports:

Can the Commission guarantee that the practice currently being applied by the SGSEV complies with Community legislation protecting human and animal health and the rights of consumers and citizens in general?

Does the Commission not consider, furthermore, that the Spanish authorities are favouring certain import companies that are subject to fewer health and financial requirements when placing products from third countries on the market over producers in the EU Member States?

---

(1)  Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 1 October 2003 concerning documentary checks on direct landings of fishery products.

(2)  OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

(3)  OJ L 298, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

(4)  OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(5)  OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(6)  OJ L 121, 12.5.1994, p. 3.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/641 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/641

---

(2004/C 84 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments of third-country products that do not comply with current Community rules on product certification and registration. More specifically, this body has instructed those inspectors whose job it is to check on import conditions not to prevent the entry of products from third countries even if problems arise on their arrival in port, such as failure to provide the original copy of the health certificate from the country of origin (a simple faxed copy is accepted).

Inspectors have also received instructions to overlook documentary requirements, such as official recognition of the country of origin as an authorised country — as soon as the product leaves the port and not when it arrives —, the failure to report product defects in writing and within the specified period, a problem that is usually remedied with a sworn declaration by the commercial agent, and a lack of information about the consignment, code, date of manufacture or the surplus of goods etc.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Decision 93/13/EEC (2) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (3)) and Directive 97/78/EC (4):

| — | Does the Commission consider that the Spanish authorities are acting properly in authorising third-country products arriving on Community territory at Spanish ports? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission consider that the Spanish authorities are acting properly in authorising third-country products arriving on Community territory at Spanish ports?

| — | Does the Commission not think that this watering-down of the health documentation and certification requirements for third-country products means unfair treatment of Community products, which must comply with all the rules? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not think that this watering-down of the health documentation and certification requirements for third-country products means unfair treatment of Community products, which must comply with all the rules?

| — | Is the Commission not of the opinion that in irremediable situations, such as the absence of an original copy of a health certificate on arrival in a port, the Spanish authorities should, in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC, refuse to allow the entry of these goods? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission not of the opinion that in irremediable situations, such as the absence of an original copy of a health certificate on arrival in a port, the Spanish authorities should, in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC, refuse to allow the entry of these goods?

| — | Does the Commission not consider that, by issuing these instructions, the Spanish authorities are forcing official veterinarians at Spanish border inspection posts to disregard Community rules on the protection of human and animal health? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not consider that, by issuing these instructions, the Spanish authorities are forcing official veterinarians at Spanish border inspection posts to disregard Community rules on the protection of human and animal health?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the allegations concerning the instructions in question and is continuing its enquiries as to whether the instructions involve conflicts with Community legislation concerning controls on imports.

If, after more detailed study of the allegations, there is any evidence of conflict with Community legal requirements, the Commission will take the matter up with the Spanish authorities. The Commission will contact the Honourable Member when its enquiries are complete.

---

(1)  Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 11 April 2002 concerning remediable deficiencies in goods inspections.

(2)  OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(3)  OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(4)  OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/642

---

(2004/C 84 E/0723)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Hunger strike by Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari

The Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari, sentenced on 29 August 2003 to 13 months' imprisonment for ‘defamation’ and ‘failure to comply with an administrative decision’, has been on hunger strike for 20 days. On 17 February 2004, his family learned that the Tunisian prison authorities had, for the second week running, refused them permission to visit him in prison.

As far back as 2002, regarding a previous arrest of Mr Zouari (joint reply to Written Questions E-2526/02, E-2597/02 and E-2629/02 (1)), the Commission expressed ‘doubts concerning the re-arrest of Mr Abdallah Zouari and the legitimacy of the administrative measure behind it’.

Has the Commission moved to call on its office in Tunis to request a prison visit to Mr Zouari? If not, does the Commission intend to do so in the next few days?

What conclusions has the Commission drawn about the ‘legitimacy of the administrative measure’ used in Mr Zouari's case, over which it had expressed doubts?

Does the Commission intend to intervene with the Tunisian authorities to call for the release of political dissidents, in particular the journalists Hamadi Jebali and Abdallah Zouari, who were arrested for expressing their opinion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is in regular contact with Member States on human rights issues in Tunisia, and as the Honourable Member points out, has been following closely the cases of Abdallah Zouari and Hamadi Jebali. As a source of information the Commission is in regular contact with Tunisian independent civil society organisations.

The Commission has ongoing concerns about aspects of the administration of justice in Tunisia and is engaged in a regular dialogue with the Tunisian authorities on these questions, ‘inter alia’ in the framework of the Association Agreement and the European Neighbourhood Policy. Moreover, an ambitious Mediterranean-European Development Agreement (MEDA) programme, currently in preparation, in support of Tunisian reform plans for the judiciary may include prison administration issues.

The Commission has learned that Mr Zouari has now brought an end to his hunger strike, and thanks the Honourable Member for the information that the Tunisian prison authorities have prevented Mr Zouari from receiving visits from his family. The Commission intends to bring this to the attention of Member States with a view to discussing options for action, including the possibility of a prison visit.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 26.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/643 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/643

---

(2004/C 84 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0634/04

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject:   Possible infringement by Italy

The Italian association LAPET (Independent Association of Taxation Analysts and Experts) wrote on 3 February 2003 to the Commission's DG Competition and DG Internal Market concerning a possible infringement of Community law by Italy. There appears to have been a clear breach of Community law in Italy in relation to Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July 1997 (notably that law's Article 36).

Under that law, privileges are awarded to taxpayers who accept to have their accounts inspected by professionals who are qualified under the conditions laid down in the same law to undertake the necessary certification. Such professionals have to be auditors whose names have been entered for at least five years on the tax accountants', general accountants', commercial experts' or labour consultants' register, and must also have audited taxpayers' accounts during the tax period covered by the certification.

Can the Commission provide information on current practice in this respect and state what measures have been or will be taken?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is referring to information received by the Directorates-General for Competition and for the Internal Market in 2003. The presumed infringement concerns the exclusive right given to accountants who are registered for at least five years and have kept the accounts of a company to issue the so-called ‘heavy visa’.

In many Member States certain activities are reserved for certain professions. The Commission would like to draw attention to the newly published Report on Competition in Professional Services (1), where it analyses the existing regulations in the field of the liberal professions and sets out the Commission's thinking on the scope for reforming or modernising specific professional rules. The Report recognises that some regulation in the sector of professional services is justified although it believes that, in some cases, more pro-competitive mechanisms can and should be used instead.

It should also be stressed that the Member States are free to reserve activities for certain professions provided that they respect the principles of non-discrimination (nationality) and proportionality (and in particular provided that the measure is likely to achieve a legitimate objective such as the protection of consumers/customers through the justified qualifications-based requirement).

In order to be able to assess the alleged infringement, the Commission has requested further information from the informant and Italy is examining the file. At present, it cannot yet say what the result of its investigation will be.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 83 of 9.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/644 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/644

---

(2004/C 84 E/0725)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Europe and the future of young people

In 2001, a 24-year-old Italian student obtained a degree in mechanical engineering at Milan Technical University. At the beginning of 2002, he was awarded a scholarship at UNED University in Madrid, where he produced the dissertation required to complete the second stage of tertiary education. On 31 January 2003, he submitted a request to the Ministry of Education and Culture of Madrid for official approval of his first degree, providing for this a huge amount of documents. A year later, the Ministry is still not in a position to set a date for the approval to be granted. Both the Vice-Chancellor of UNED and the Italian Consulate in Madrid have expressed an interest in the case, without receiving a definite response from the Ministry. The student, meanwhile, has been unable to take part in competitive examinations or to study at UNED and has not had his scholarship renewed.

| 1. | Does the Commission know whether these delays are due only to bureaucratic obstacles? If so, can it take steps to ensure that these are overcome? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission know whether these delays are due only to bureaucratic obstacles? If so, can it take steps to ensure that these are overcome?

| 2. | Does not the Commission consider that obstacles of this type are the result of a deplorable collaboration between the ministries responsible for education in Member States, flying in the face of all the solemn declarations on common cultural heritage and on the future of young people in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does not the Commission consider that obstacles of this type are the result of a deplorable collaboration between the ministries responsible for education in Member States, flying in the face of all the solemn declarations on common cultural heritage and on the future of young people in Europe?

| 3. | How does the Commission respond to the scepticism provoked among young research students forced to waste a year of their future because of ministerial delays in officially approving a degree? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission respond to the scepticism provoked among young research students forced to waste a year of their future because of ministerial delays in officially approving a degree?

| 4. | What kind of Europe must they believe in? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What kind of Europe must they believe in?

| 5. | What are the prospects open to someone who, believing in European cooperation, sought to broaden his cultural education at a different European university to that in which he gained his first degree? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What are the prospects open to someone who, believing in European cooperation, sought to broaden his cultural education at a different European university to that in which he gained his first degree?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties that remain as regards the academic recognition of diplomas in some countries, including Spain. It agrees with the Honourable Member that delays of this kind, and in particular obstacles such as those described, can lead to a certain amount of scepticism among young research students wishing to experience mobility. Community action in the field of education is in fact specifically intended to facilitate such mobility.

For this reason, following complaints and petitions, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under the provisions of Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/645 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/645

---

(2004/C 84 E/0726)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Threat to survival of Italian small communes

Italy has 5 868‘piccoli comuni’, small communes with a population of less than 5 000, which constitute a precious cultural and historical heritage.

These communes, though they lack any economic weight of their own, have behind them a deep-rooted history and long-standing tradition and, as the first expression of organised civil society in Italy, have accumulated the heritage of the thousand-year history of the country to a greater extent than any other territorial unit, such as provinces and regions.

Nevertheless, due to their small size and in order to simplify and modernise administrative procedures, many of these small communes are under threat of being incorporated into other municipalities and thus disappearing.

However, it would seem necessary to protect and guarantee the identity, existence and full autonomy of small communes and of their local communities in order to conserve the country's rich cultural heritage, to facilitate administrative decentralisation and to ensure that democratic principles are applied and represented at local level.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Are there EU programmes to support communes of less than 5 000 inhabitants, providing for practical steps to help economic, agricultural, trade and crafts activities and to contribute to enhancing their natural and historical-cultural heritage? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are there EU programmes to support communes of less than 5 000 inhabitants, providing for practical steps to help economic, agricultural, trade and crafts activities and to contribute to enhancing their natural and historical-cultural heritage?

| 2. | Are there any incentives to maintain the dwelling density of these communes, such as measures in support of people moving house or their place of business for at least ten years to one of these communes, or reimbursing families who have to pay school fees for their children? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are there any incentives to maintain the dwelling density of these communes, such as measures in support of people moving house or their place of business for at least ten years to one of these communes, or reimbursing families who have to pay school fees for their children?

| 3. | Is it possible to receive EU funding to set up innovative arrangements for the provision and management of services that cannot necessarily be located in urban areas, such as small universities, laboratories, museums, healthcare and sporting infrastructure and health services? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it possible to receive EU funding to set up innovative arrangements for the provision and management of services that cannot necessarily be located in urban areas, such as small universities, laboratories, museums, healthcare and sporting infrastructure and health services?

| 4. | Can the Commission provide an opinion on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission provide an opinion on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20. April 2004)

The EU supports socio-economic development programmes under the Structural Funds and rural development programmes under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). These programmes provide the possibilities for among other things, financial support for local development activities in small communes and villages. The purpose of local development activities is to maintain or create economic activities linked to the agricultural sector, local industry and handicraft, service sector, tourism, protection of the landscape and of natural and cultural resources, in order to provide training and employment opportunities.

The programmes concerned exist in the different Italian regions. The responsibility for the day-to-day management of the programmes including the selection of projects for financial support lies with the central and regional authorities in the Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/646 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/646

---

(2004/C 84 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Update on suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

Regarding Written Question P-3323/03 (1) requesting clarification of a possible infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome, the Commission replied, on 27 November 2003, that it would make the necessary checks ‘to ascertain whether ATAC complied with Community rules and principles on public procurement in the case in question’.

Can the Commission indicate whether these checks have been made and, if they have been completed, what the findings of these were?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Further to Written Question E-3323/03 from the Honourable Member, the Commission asked the Italian authorities, in a letter dated 8 December 2003, to provide information on the procedures used by ATAC in Rome for the award of the public procurement contracts which were the subject of that Written Question and to submit all relevant documentation.

A reply from the Italian authorities was received only at the beginning of March 2004. The Commission is in the process of examining certain aspects of that reply and is still waiting to receive all the relevant documents; this material should allow the Commission to make a final assessment on the compatibility of the procedures in question with Community law on public procurement.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/646 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/646

---

(2004/C 84 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0646/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Massacre in Lira (northern Uganda)

On Saturday, 21 February 2004, in a refugee camp in Lira, the capital of a district in northern Uganda, a massacre occurred in which at least 220 people were killed. Rebels belonging to the ‘Lord's Resistance Army’ (LRA) set fire to hundreds of huts and fired on unarmed civilians. It is believed that the Uganda military bear a large part of the responsibility thanks to their failure to protect civilians.

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take to put an end to this situation in northern Uganda?

Can it state what role it is playing in democratisation in Uganda?

What is the Commission's present strategy for economic and social development in Uganda?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission, like other donors represented in Uganda, is deeply disturbed by the alarming humanitarian situation in northern Uganda and in particular by the recent atrocities committed against civilians in Lira district. The ‘Donor Group on Northern Uganda, Amnesty and Recovery from Conflict’, which is chaired by the Head of the Commission Delegation in Uganda, handed over a statement to the Ugandan Parliament on 27 February 2004, in which the attack on the Barlonyo camp by the LRA, was condemned in the strongest terms. The Government of Uganda was urged — once again — to explore all avenues to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda, including creating a climate in which a negotiated solution could be found. The Group also condemned the recent inter-ethnic clashes between Langi and Acholi people, which, if not contained, could lead to a further escalation of an already dramatic situation.

The Commission stresses that it is in the first place the responsibility of the Government and Army of Uganda to protect civilians from the vicious attacks of the Lord's Resistance Army, as well as to ensure that military operations are conducted in accordance with universally recognised principles for the protection of civilians in war zones. However, the Commission also believes that the Government of Uganda should acknowledge the limits of an exclusively military strategy, and to seek other, alternative measures of resolving the conflict. The Donor Group has expressed its willingness to assist in meaningful attempts to find a non-military solution, and the Commission has repeatedly discussed various options with the Presidential Peace Team as well as civil society leaders in Acholiland. Unfortunately, the lack of a clear strategy on the Government side, as well as the absence of a response from the LRA leadership to calls for a negotiated settlement, have thus far thwarted all such efforts.

Nevertheless, the Commission stands ready to provide assistance for the social and economic rehabilitation of northern Uganda, if and when security conditions allow for medium-term interventions. In the meantime, the Commission has provided substantial humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of those affected by the conflict. Following a Parliament Resolution of 2003 (1), in which the humanitarian aid office of the European Commission (ECHO) was asked to step up assistance to northern Uganda, ECHO did so, quadrupling its overall funding in 2003 to EUR 8 million. ECHO covered the following number of beneficiaries in various sectors: health and nutrition (883 000), food security (425 000), water and sanitation (1 100 000), non-food items (730 000) and former child soldier rehabilitation (1,400).

In 2004, ECHO is focusing on health and nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, non-food items, as well as protection (land-mine awareness), child-soldier rehabilitation and childhood education in a displaced environment. Support for coordination of humanitarian operators' activities in the affected areas is also a priority.

Concerning the process of democratisation in Uganda, the Commission follows with interest, and with a certain degree of concern, the ongoing constitutional review as well as the political dialogue between the Government of Uganda and a group of opposition parties. These issues are addressed in the political dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement with the Government of Uganda and other relevant political actors with a view to encouraging them to resolve the existing differences through transparent dialogue and negotiation, as well as through free and fair electoral competition.

The Commission's strategy for economic and social development in Uganda is outlined in the Country Strategy Paper jointly developed by the Government of Uganda and the Commission. It is designed to assist in sectors that are considered essential for the future of the country, notably macro-economic support and economic reform, transport and rural development. Assistance in these focal sectors will be complemented by capacity building for governance and civil society.

To increase the poverty eradication impact of donor support, the Commission is working closely with other donors in the framework of the Government's Poverty Eradication Action Plan and the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture. Furthermore, the Commission will support Uganda in carrying out negotiations in a regional context on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) as well as in implementing the accompanying trade policy and structural reforms. This includes capacity building in the area of trade policy that, ‘inter alia’, will allow Uganda to take advantage of enhanced market access under the EPA as well as under the ‘Everything but Arms’ (EBA) initiative.

---

(1)  European Parliament Resolution adopted 3.7.2003: http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=DOCPV&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&SDOCTA=22&TXTLST=l&POS=l&Type_Doc=RESOL&TPV=DEF&D-ATE=030703&PrgPrev=PRG@TITRE|APP@PV2|TYPEF@TITRE|YEAR@03|Find@%55%67%61%6e%64%61|FILE@BIB-LIO03|PLAGE@l&TYPEF=TITRE&NUMB=l&DATEF=030703

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/648 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/648

---

(2004/C 84 E/0729)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/04

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Eliminating the distinction between ‘packaging/packaging waste’ and ‘goods/goods waste’

Knowing that:

| — | In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to waste is laid down in a variety of different texts; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to waste is laid down in a variety of different texts;

| — | In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to plastic waste is derived from sources which distinguish between goods and packaging. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to plastic waste is derived from sources which distinguish between goods and packaging.

| — | Directive 94/62/EC (1) on packaging and packaging waste illustrates the differential approach described above. The difficulties associated with legislation in which a rigid distinction is made between goods and packaging are familiar ones (not least on account of the recent revision of the above Directive) and in the case of plastics such legislation should be simplified. |
| --- | --- |

—

Directive 94/62/EC (1) on packaging and packaging waste illustrates the differential approach described above. The difficulties associated with legislation in which a rigid distinction is made between goods and packaging are familiar ones (not least on account of the recent revision of the above Directive) and in the case of plastics such legislation should be simplified.

| — | Containers designed for use in industry and agriculture as storage and protection for goods and merchandise serve their purpose and are repeatedly re-used within a single company's production cycle. They are not normally used during the marketing stage and are not therefore transferred from one producer to another or from a producer to a trader. At the end of their life the containers usually have a residual value, for which reason the producer himself takes them back from the user in order to have them refurbished or recycled, thereby launching a virtuous circle based on the containers' inherent characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

—

Containers designed for use in industry and agriculture as storage and protection for goods and merchandise serve their purpose and are repeatedly re-used within a single company's production cycle. They are not normally used during the marketing stage and are not therefore transferred from one producer to another or from a producer to a trader. At the end of their life the containers usually have a residual value, for which reason the producer himself takes them back from the user in order to have them refurbished or recycled, thereby launching a virtuous circle based on the containers' inherent characteristics.

| — | Plastic and paper bags and envelopes are often sold separately from the goods which they are intended to contain and they are normally re-used for the same purpose, or used by the final consumer for other purposes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Plastic and paper bags and envelopes are often sold separately from the goods which they are intended to contain and they are normally re-used for the same purpose, or used by the final consumer for other purposes.

| — | Familiar, too, are the difficulties which the Member States experience in enforcing, via their domestic law, a distinction between goods and packaging which in legal terms is often a very fine one. |
| --- | --- |

—

Familiar, too, are the difficulties which the Member States experience in enforcing, via their domestic law, a distinction between goods and packaging which in legal terms is often a very fine one.

| — | The fact that legislation relating in particular to goods or packaging waste management is scattered across a number of legal texts has been (and continues to be) the cause of many disputes. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fact that legislation relating in particular to goods or packaging waste management is scattered across a number of legal texts has been (and continues to be) the cause of many disputes.

In view of the above, does the Commission not consider there to be a case for reviewing the approach adopted in the drafting of legislation and abandoning the current practice of distinguishing between goods and packaging? A different approach should be adopted to the environmental problem of waste, based on the nature of the substance (plastic, etc.) involved and disregarding the distinction between goods and packaging.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The terms ‘packaging’ and ‘goods’ are not complementary as the term ‘goods’ covers packaging but also has a wider connotation. For the purpose of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on Packaging and Packaging Waste (2), the terms ‘packaging’ and ‘packaging waste’ are necessary to define the scope of the directive and to give legal certainty to economic operators as to whether their products are covered by the obligations of the Directive. During the legislative process leading to the adoption of the revised Packaging Directive 2004/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (3), the Parliament and the Council have emphasised the need for clear rules distinguishing between packaging and non-packaging and have called upon the Commission to further refine this distinction. The Commission is currently preparing the follow-up to this directive.

Moving to a material based approach for the promotion of recycling is one of the options put forward in the communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (4). As the question suggests, it could indeed promote greater coherence in the handling of certain waste.

---

(1)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(3)  OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.

(4)  COM(2003) 301 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/649

---

(2004/C 84 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Position of the French language in the European institutions

According to press reports, the Commission is apparently earmarking some EUR 20 million in order to make French ‘the’ official language in the institutions. The relevant decision was apparently taken after it became clear that the vast majority of future officials from the ten new Member States had English as their second language. Still according to press reports, the aim is, apparently, to teach French to 5 000 officials by 2008. (The French Government itself is also making an effort to promote the French language in the future Member States).

Is this information correct?

While nobody would deny the desirability of promoting a knowledge of languages other than the mother tongue, primarily in the European institutions as well, it would seem that the learning of one specific language (namely French) is being promoted as a reaction to the perceived dominance of another language. Were similar measures set up in the past with the same view in mind? Which languages were then involved?

Is not the Commission giving the impression that it is trying to regulate the relationship between languages in the European Union for the benefit of one specific language and to the detriment of others? Should not the Commission be adopting an impartial stance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0308/04 by Mr Seppänen. (1)

---

(1)  See page 358.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/649

---

(2004/C 84 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea

According to document IP/04/159, the Commission believes that the Greek authorities' requirement that cabotage vessel crews on domestic routes must pass a Greek language proficiency test is illegal.

The principle whereby it is obligatory for crews on cabotage routes to know the language of the countries served is elementary common sense; it applies to the Norwegian cabotage lines, for example, linking Norway with its North Sea and Baltic neighbours.

Can the Commission confirm that IP/04/159 is even correct?

Will it provide me with the results of the enquiry which it undoubtedly carried out before proceeding legally to dispute in any way the application of the principle whereby it is obligatory for crews of cabotage vessels working off the coast of Europe to know the local language?

Can it explain how it intends to assume its responsibilities if there is an accident caused by failure to respect this basic rule of safety at sea?

Can it explain how it reconciles this profoundly irresponsible attitude with its guarantees that it is committed to ensuring safety at sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

The Commission believes that imposing a knowledge of Greek on all crew members, including those who are not responsible for assisting passengers in emergency situations, is unacceptable.

The Commission would recall that the Community legislation, in particular Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), lays down rules regarding on-board communication, among other things. Article 17 of the Directive requires the Member States to ensure that crew members on passenger ships who are responsible for assisting passengers in emergency situations have sufficient skills to communicate with them. A knowledge of the languages appropriate to the principle nationalities of the passengers carried on a particular route is one of the requirements which may be demanded.

With regard to the Honourable Member's reference to the rules which apply on Norwegian ships, the Commission will gather the necessary information from the Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 18.5.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/650 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/650

---

(2004/C 84 E/0732)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   NGO and civil society funding — European Convention

Can the Commission please tell me specifically which NGOs and/or civil society representatives/organisations received funding, grants or expenses of any kind for their participation in the European Convention?

Can they further tell me how much each specific organisation, individual or NGO received, on what date and for what purpose any monies were paid?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

As the Commission indicated in its recent reply to Written Question P-0074/04 (1), the Honourable Member can obtain more detailed information from the General Secretariat of the Council, which provided the secretariat for the two conventions.

---

(1)  See page 144.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/651

---

(2004/C 84 E/0733)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Ireland's failure to report on CO2 emissions from new passenger cars

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion sent to Ireland in April 2002, as announced in IP/02/553, regarding Ireland's failure to report on CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in line with Decision No 1753/2000/EC (1) of 22 June 2000? What action has the Commission taken or is it considering taking in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The infringement procedure referred to by the Honourable Member (2) relates to the failure by Ireland to provide monitoring data on Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new passenger cars for the year 2000 pursuant to Decision No 1753/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 establishing a scheme to monitor the average specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars. As Ireland's response to this infringement did not provide the missing information, the Commission decided to refer Ireland to the Court of Justice and a Court application was lodged in June 2003. During the course of the Court proceedings, Ireland provided data for 2000 and 2001. The Commission considered that the infringement had thereby been brought to an end and in December 2003 it decided to withdraw the proceedings from the Court.

---

(1)  OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 1.

(2)  2001/2203.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/651

---

(2004/C 84 E/0734)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0672/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Recognition of pharmacists' professional qualifications

Article 2, paragraph 2 of Directive 85/433/EEC (1) allows Member States to prevent pharmacists who have obtained their qualifications in another Member State from working in pharmacies established for less than three years.

Has the Commission received complaints regarding the impact of this particular provision at Member State level and, if so, what has been its response to these complaints?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

First of all, the Commission would like to explain that the provision to which the Honourable Member refers does not allow Member States to refuse pharmacists who have obtained their qualifications in another Member State the right to work in dispensing pharmacies which have been open for less than three years. This provision only makes it possible to prevent these pharmacists from being the owner (in Member states where ownership is reserved for pharmacists only), controller or managing pharmacist/technical supervisor (i.e. the person who assumes the ultimate responsibility for running the pharmacy) of such a pharmacy. As a result, the pharmacists in question have the right to work in a dispensing pharmacy which has been open for less than three years, even if they can only work there as employees.

The Commission has not received any complaints about this matter. It has, however, received mail on this topic, mainly from Parliamentary representatives. A petition concerning this derogation, which has since been closed, was also submitted to the Parliament's Committee on Petitions.

As the Commission stated in its replies and communications regarding the above-mentioned letters and petition, the purpose of the derogation laid down by the first subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 85/433/EEC (2) is explained in the seventh recital of that Directive: to avoid problems which may result from the differences between Member States which restrict the number of new pharmacies that may be established and those which have no such restrictions.

The second subparagraph of Article 2(2) lays down that the derogation should be reviewed five years after the entry into force of the Directive. However, it emerged from this review which took place in 1993 that around half of the Member States made use, at that time, of the derogation. This is why no proposal was then put forward to remove it.

As is clear from the wording of the provision in question, this derogation is simply an option which the Member States may or may not use. Should a Member State therefore decide to amend its legislation by removing the restriction in question, and thus expanding the freedom of establishment for pharmacists, there would be no infringement of Directive 85/433/EEC.

In its proposal for a Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications of 7 March 2002 (3), the Commission did propose that this derogation be removed. However, at its first reading, the Parliament adopted amendments to reinstate this provision in the proposal. The Commission has rejected these amendments.

---

(1)  OJ L 253, 24.9.1985, p. 37.

(2)  Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy, OJ L 253, 24.9.1985.

(3)  COM(2002) 119 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/652 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/652

---

(2004/C 84 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Third level education charges for EU citizens

In Irish third level education, students considered as non-EU citizens often pay three times more in fees than their EU citizen counterparts.

Is the Commission aware that the Irish Government has not yet informed citizens of accession states, currently hoping to begin third-level education in Ireland next academic year, whether they will be eligible for reduced EU-citizen fees? The final date for submission of applications to third level institutions has already passed, yet many prospective students at Irish universities and colleges have had no indication from the Department of Education and Science as to what their status will be when the new academic year begins in September.

As they will be EU citizens from 1 May, does the Commission agree that the charging of non-EU fees to citizens of new Member States constitutes a clear act of discrimination? Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government on this issue? What has been its response? Has the Commission received similar complaints from other Member States on this issue? What action does it propose to take?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

As far as conditions of access to education are concerned, the Member States are obliged to respect the principle of ‘equality of treatment’. According to this principle the university or college of a Member State where an EU citizen wishes to study must accept him/her under the same conditions as nationals.

Consequently, for the next academic year 2004/2005, Ireland and the other Member States must apply the principle of equality of treatment to nationals of the new Member States who will be entitled to pay home fees.

The Commission has not received any complaints regarding this issue and has, therefore, not contacted the Irish Government as yet.

The Commission departments will contact the Irish authorities in order to remind them of the rights of citizens of the new Member States regarding access to education.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/653 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/653

---

(2004/C 84 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat — border controls

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, and with reference to the Commission's response to Written Question E-2445/03 (1) (22 July 2003), what representations has the Commission made to Member States about the need for improved border controls to prevent this trade?

What action does the Commission propose to take to prevent illegal imports of bushmeat into Europe and coordinate efforts to encourage the tightening-up of external Community frontier controls and end this illegal trade?

---

(1)  See page 492.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/653 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/653

---

(2004/C 84 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat — disease transmission

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, what action has the Commission taken to conduct a risk assessment of the potential for disease transmission to humans from illegal bushmeat imports into the European Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0679/04 and E-0680/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Member States are required to maintain and enforce strict controls on imports of animal products, including personal imports, to avert both animal health and public health risks. The Commission recognises that a big risk factor is the importation of bush meat carried by passengers for their personal consumption.

To strengthen controls for animal products carried by passengers for their personal consumption including for all illegal importations, the Commission recently adopted Commission Decision 2002/995/EC (1). This lays down rules which prevent, with limited exemptions, the import of all personal consignments of meat and milk into the EU, and includes the provision for Member States to implement controls on passengers at all EU passenger entry points from third countries.

A free multi-language poster was also developed and distributed for use in airports to improve awareness of the public to the tightened rules for products of animal origin accompanying passengers in their personal luggage. The Commission has also prepared and sent out a follow-up questionnaire to Member States on the results of these new controls in order to gain feed-back from the Member States on this problem.

Building on the information gained from the questionnaire and also from working groups with Member States experts, the Commission intends to adopt shortly a Regulation to replace Commission Decision 2002/995/EC with the aim to improve and tighten controls.

The Regulation will not only strengthen existing rules but give the Member States greater scope to improve enforcement, and explicitly penalise those passengers that are found to be in breach of the rules.

To complement these actions, the Food and Veterinary Office are also proposing to carry out a mission to several Member States soon to look at the effectiveness of the application by the Member States of the controls laid down in Community legislation, including the problem of illegal imports.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2002/995/EC of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, OJ L 353, 30.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/654 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/654

---

(2004/C 84 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0688/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Application of Regulation No 1788/2003 Article 10(3)

For operational transparency and control reasons, the Azores milk producers' representative bodies have claimed that the calculation of the possible reallocation of the unused parts of the reference quantity be made not only at the level of each buyer and national level, but also at the intermediate level of the regions.

Does the Commission believe that this request contradicts the ‘objective criteria’ referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 Article 10? (1)

Is the Commission aware of any case in which the Member State is going to make use of this intermediate stage in the reallocation of reference quantities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector clearly lays down the two ways in which unused quantities are to be reallocated, one exclusively at national level, the other firstly at the level of the purchaser and thereafter at national level where appropriate. This at once rules out any regional stage.

It is for the sake of sound management and so as not to weaken the role of the purchaser that the regional level is not referrred to in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003.

For deliveries it was agreed to give purchasers prime managerial responsibility for the declaration of milk collected and collection of the additional levy. That is why unused quantities can be reallocated at purchaser level.

Thus the system is not compatible with regionalised management. Purchasers' collection areas are not necessarily bounded by regional borders — they may collect milk in more than one region.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 123.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/655 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/655

---

(2004/C 84 E/0739)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/04

by Dominique Souchet (Nl) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Systemic insecticides

On 23 February, the French Ministry of Agriculture announced a ban on the sale of any products containing Fipronil, an insecticide molecule, as a preventative measure following the charges brought against Bayer Crop over the possible toxicity to human or animal health of agricultural products containing this molecule.

Does the Commission intend to draw any particular conclusions from the decision to introduce a ban in keeping with the precautionary principle?

With regard to beekeeping more specifically, does the Commission plan to take measures identical to those taken in France?

How does the Commission intend to follow up the resolution on measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (A5-0381/2001), adopted by the European Parliament on 13 December 2001, which noted that ‘extremely serious damage has been caused to bee populations in several Member States by systemic insecticides with extremely long residual activity periods’?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the declaration of 23 February 2004 of the French Minister of Agriculture that national authorisations of products containing fipronil are to be suspended pending a position on the substance by the European Food Safety Authority. The Commission notes that the products are marketed in France by BASF and not by Bayer CropScience.

The Commission notes that this reflects a precautionary approach by the French authorities following a scientific analysis of the fipronil dossier by the French authorities.

A scientific analysis of the dossier is now being undertaken at Community level by the European Food Safety Authority in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). When the analysis is complete, the Commission will propose appropriate measures at Community level for the substance in question. Since the Directive provides that, pending a Community Decision on the substance, Member States may continue to apply national measures to products containing the substance, the Commission does not propose taking any measures at this time other than following the case closely and facilitating the exchange of information among the Member States.

As far as the follow-up to the Parliament Resolution is concerned, the Commission adopted the follow-up on the recommendations in its meeting of 5 February 2004 (2). This follow-up was e-mailed to Parliament on 11 February 2004 in the language in which it was drafted. The other language versions will be sent as soon as they become available.

Programmes presented by the Member States under Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (3) may include measures to restock hives. For example, the honey programme presented by France for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 marketing years includes such measures.

---

(1)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2)  Doc. SP (2004)-293.

(3)  OJ L 173, 1.7.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/656 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/656

---

(2004/C 84 E/0740)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Funding by the ‘Culture 2000’ programme of books or translations of books which extol nationalistic policies and their despotic practices

Has the European Commission funded, via the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, the writing of a book (or its translation, e.g. from French into Greek) on the life and exploits of Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish nationalistic politician?

Is the Commission aware of whether funding has been given in Greece or in other EU countries (and if so, which ones) for the publication or translation of such a book, which praises the nationalism of this politician and of the totalitarian regime which he established in that country, and his despotic tendencies, and libels the Greeks as ‘murderers’?

Which translations of biographies of great leaders and heroes of the Balkan peoples and of the Arabs who resisted the despotic Ottoman empire and led their peoples to freedom has the Commission funded via the ‘Culture 2000’ programme?

If such a book on the exploits of Atatürk was in fact funded via ‘Culture 2000’, what was the procedure followed and which body chose the book or its translation for funding?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

With regard to books, reading and translation, the aim of the Culture 2000 programme is to raise awareness of the literature and history of the peoples of Europe and to promote the distribution of such works. This is done using funding awarded for the translation of literature, drama and reference works (particularly works in the lesser-known European languages and the languages of central and eastern Europe).

In selecting works whose translations are to be awarded funding, the fundamental criterion is the quality of the original work and of the translations, as well as the quality and reliability of the publishing house, with due respect for the principle of freedom of expression.

The arrangements for the selection of works are set out clearly in the annual calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Commission provided funding under the Culture 2000 programme for the translation from French to Greek of the historical work ‘Kemal Atatürk: les chemins de l'occident’ by the author Alexandre Jevakhoff.

The Commission has not been informed of any other public financing being awarded for translation of this work into other languages in Europe.

A detailed list of all books for which funding for translation has been provided under the Culture 2000 programme since 2000 is available on the Internet at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html).

The procedure followed for awarding translation funding under the Culture 2000 programme is provided for in the Decision which established the programme (1). It is applied strictly.

The publishing house which received funding for translation of the work ‘Kemal Atatürk: les chemins de l'occident’ is Travlos éditions.

---

(1)  Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme, OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/657 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/657

---

(2004/C 84 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0700/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Use of European Social Fund resources in connection with the Edunet project

In two earlier questions (E-0103/01 (1) of 29 January 2001 and E-2345/02 (2) of 29 July 2002) the author of this question referred to the Commission for its consideration the case of the ‘Edunet Project’, which was being promoted by the CST srl company and financed by means of the EU's European Social Fund (Adapt programme) and in connection with which EU funding seemed to be being used for a purpose totally different from its intended one.

In her reply of 8 March 2001 Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou (Commissioner) said that in response to the above questions the Commission had asked the Italian Ministry of Labour to check the expenditure made in connection with the Edunet project and not to pay any advances.

In her second reply (of 16 September 2002) Mrs Diamantopoulou announced (a) that she had received a report from the Ministry of Labour, according to which there appeared to be ‘a confusion of project-related activities and activities outside the scope of the project, i.e. trade union activities’, (b) that the Ministry of Labour had suspended all further payments, (c) that the case had been forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and (d) that the Commission was awaiting the financial certification of the closure of the Community initiatives (Adapt/Employment) and had reserved the right to evaluate the eligibility of the submitted expenditure.

In the light of the facts set out above the Public Prosecutor's Office in Rome opened a judicial inquiry, the preliminary stage of which has now, apparently, been concluded.

Would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | Has it received (from the Italian Government, amongst other sources) any further clarification concerning the Edunet Project? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has it received (from the Italian Government, amongst other sources) any further clarification concerning the Edunet Project?

| — | Is it now able to evaluate the eligibility of the expenditure made in connection with the Edunet Project? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it now able to evaluate the eligibility of the expenditure made in connection with the Edunet Project?

Furthermore, given that the organisation involved in the above case (the Fisacat-CISL company) is now involved in other initiatives financed by means of the European Social Fund (such as the Flexible Training System project), does the Commission consider this to be compatible with the purposes and the objectives which that Fund is intended to serve?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-2345/02 by the Honourable Member, the Italian Ministry of Labour has suspended the payment for the Edunet project as there are ongoing investigations concerning this element of the programme.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has opened a co-ordination case on the basis of Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (3).

This investigation, in which OLAF provided assistance and technical support, was carried out by the Italian authority (Guardia di Finanza).

The above-mentioned action indicated irregularities to the detriment of the European Social Fund. Subsequently, the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office opened criminal proceedings involving ten persons. A final decision by the Italian Court in this matter has not yet been notified to the Commission.

OLAF is currently engaged in the financial and judicial follow-up in this matter.

The Commission is now evaluating the possibility to close the ADAPT programme with the exception of the Edunet project subject to legal proceedings, in accordance with Article 52 §5 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (4).

---

(1)  OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 11.

(2)  OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 225.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/658 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/658

---

(2004/C 84 E/0742)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0702/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Greenland halibut recovery: extraordinary measures to be adopted by the Commission

In its reply of 27 November to my question P-3264/03 (1), the Commission said that a working party was being set up within the Directorate-General on Fisheries to study all the implications of the decisions adopted at the annual NAFO meeting in 2003 for the Community fleet.

On 19 January, the Director-General answered my question in the Fisheries Commission concerning Mr McGuire's new scientific reports — which contradicted previous NAFO reports — by saying that the Commission would study them. Fresh meetings with the scientists have recently been held in Madrid.

What is the current state of affairs with regard to this issue?

Is the Commission going to take the new reports into account at the June and September 2004 NAFO meetings, so as better to defend the EU's fishing interests?

What concrete plans does the Commission have, and what measures does it intend to take to help the fleet affected by the NAFO decisions of 2003 on Greenland halibut?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission has studied the McGuire report and participated in a meeting arranged by the Spanish authorities. Following a thorough examination in consultation with all Community representatives of the NAFO Scientific Council, the Commission does not consider that the report adds any new elements and, therefore, remains confident in the work performed by the Scientific Council of NAFO in June 2003. The Commission is of the view that the most appropriate forum to debate this report would be the NAFO Scientific Council meeting in June 2004.

Amendments to the FIFG Regulation (2) are currently under discussion in the Council, intended to alleviate the burden on fishermen following the adoption of recovery plans, including socio-economic measures for fishermen. The Commission is examining these favourably.

Alternative fishing opportunities have also been made available to the Community NAFO fleet through quota transfers in Greenland and Faroese Waters.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 248.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/659 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/659

---

(2004/C 84 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Member State contributions to the Community Budget

The contributions made by each Member State to the EU budget are either less than 1 % of their national income, or very slightly more.

Given that the Community Budget is essential for the EU to achieve balanced development and cohesion, and to pursue the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, why do these contributions have to go on counting towards each Member State's deficit?

If they did not, is it not the case that the need to plug the national budgetary deficit by cutting contributions to the Community Budget would cease to be a pretext for preventing an increase in revenue for the new EU financial prospective for 2007-2013?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The EC Treaty obliges Member States to avoid excessive deficit positions (defined as general government deficit below a reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP)). The concept of ‘general government’ is defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts (1) in the Community (2), and the corresponding statistical data requirements are the ones in ESA95. All the expenditures included within the ‘general government’ definition do have a bearing on the excessive deficit. Member States' contributions to the EU budget are part of the expenditure of ‘general government’.

The Commission does not support any proposals to exclude specific spending items from the calculation of expenditures of ‘general government’. However, in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, it is important to increase the quality of public expenditures by redirecting public spending towards growth-enhancing cost-effective public spending. The Commission has regularly recommended in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to redirect public spending along these lines and this has indeed always been supported by the Parliament and the Council. Redirecting public expenditure would, therefore, enhance the contribution of both national and EU budgets to the achievement of Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

---

(1)  ESA95.

(2)  OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/660 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/660

---

(2004/C 84 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0707/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Creation of a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli

The Italian press recently reported that the town council of Tivoli (RM) has decided to set up an ‘ecological platform’ with the relevant infrastructure on council land in the village of La Prece located in the territory of the Monte Catillo nature reserve, the environment and landscape of which are under a number of protection orders.

The council land was handed over by the municipality to ASA Spa, a company owned by the local authority and involved in waste collection. The ‘ecological platform’ is supposed to include a dump for storage, differentiated waste collection and the disposal of inorganic waste, all located in the nature reserve.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether a prior environmental impact assessment has been carried out to ascertain whether conditions are suitable for siting the dump in the village mentioned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether a prior environmental impact assessment has been carried out to ascertain whether conditions are suitable for siting the dump in the village mentioned;

| 2. | whether the local council's decision to hand the land over to ASA Spa complies with the directives on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and on making information available to the public (85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2)) and the directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2001/42/EC (3)); |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the local council's decision to hand the land over to ASA Spa complies with the directives on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and on making information available to the public (85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2)) and the directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2001/42/EC (3));

| 3. | whether the decision to set up the ‘ecological platform’ complies with those directives? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether the decision to set up the ‘ecological platform’ complies with those directives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The project for a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli, mentioned by the Honourable Member, appears to be covered by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. It could fall into one of the classes of projects listed under Annex II of the Directive. Article 4, paragraph 2, of Directive 85/337/EEC, modified, provides that for projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination or setting thresholds or criteria, whether it needs to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

However, the Commission cannot be aware of all situations which are likely to be considered as a bad application of environmental Community law by the competent authorities of the Member States. Such situations are normally drawn to the attention of the Commission by letters of complaint, Parliamentary Written Questions and Petitions to the Petitions Committee of the Parliament and they need to be precisely described so as to enable the Commission to assess them in relation to applicable Community environmental law.

In this specific case, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to take a view on the subject matter. In light of the above, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to give more information on the matter in order to enable the Commission to assess the case according to the relevant Community law.

As regards Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the deadline for Member States to transpose this Directive is 21st July 2004. Therefore, at present, Member States are not yet obliged to apply the provisions of this Directive in their legal system.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/661 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/661

---

(2004/C 84 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Specific characteristics of mountain regions and Community policy

Mountain regions are of genuine public interest, in environmental, social and cultural terms, and represent an exceptional heritage which must not only be preserved but, above all, properly promoted. This requires adequate policies to stabilise population figures for these areas, and promote their development.

As the Mountain Areas Local Authorities Section of the National Association of Portuguese Local Authorities stressed at a recent meeting, mountain areas need to be integrated into Structural Fund policy, recognition of their specific characteristics needs to be ensured, the various sectoral policies need to be combined within a global mountain policy which is equipped with instruments tailored to the needs of these areas and their inhabitants; and there has to be full acknowledgement of the need for solutions, for the wherewithal to take action, and for particular attention to the problem of mountain areas.

Does the Commission intend to:

| 1. | Acknowledge fully and effectively the particular features and diversity of mountain regions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Acknowledge fully and effectively the particular features and diversity of mountain regions?

| 2. | Put mountain regions on the EU's political agenda and bring them within the Structural Funds framework? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Put mountain regions on the EU's political agenda and bring them within the Structural Funds framework?

| 3. | Create a Community political instrument for the mountain regions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Create a Community political instrument for the mountain regions?

| 4. | Establish better harmonised response procedures for proposals at mountain region level and for the management or Community funds in this connection? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Establish better harmonised response procedures for proposals at mountain region level and for the management or Community funds in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's interest in the place of the mountain regions in Community policies.

In October 2002 the Commission organised a conference on ‘Community policies and mountains’, which brought together around 500 participants from the political, economic and social spheres in the fifteen Member States and the candidate countries.

During the Structural Funds' 2000-2006 programming period, 95 % of the Union's mountain regions are eligible for support under either Objective 1 or Objective 2.

For the period after 2006 the Commission proposed a reform of cohesion policy in the third progress report on economic and social cohesion, adopted on 18 February 2004 (1), which it formally sent to Parliament and to the Council. The Commission proposes that territorial cohesion should from now on form an integral part of cohesion policy.

The Commission proposes that the specific characteristics of regions with a natural handicap should be taken into account in the new generation of regional programmes. For example, it is proposed that regions with a permanent handicap could be eligible for a maximum rate of Community financing, above that which would apply to other regions.

Regarding rural development, an important sphere of activity for mountain regions, the Commission also made a number of proposals in its communication ‘building our common future — policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013’ (2). For example, the Commission proposes a single instrument which would contribute inter alia towards improving the environment, the countryside and quality of life in rural areas.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 107 final.

(2)  COM(2004) 101 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/662 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/662

---

(2004/C 84 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/04

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Radio alarms

The problem of jamming is increasing exponentially due to the spectacular growth of the private security sector, and particularly sales of radio alarms, with security firms competing to under-price, so as to obtain the largest share of the market, ignoring the fact that alarms are security systems.

Does the Commission intend to take any steps to regulate this sector, so as to plug the existing legal gap?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member points out, the market for surveillance services that is offered to the public is growing. These services are competing on both quality and price aspects.

The Commission is, however, not aware that there are currently problems with the quality and reliability of such services that are attributable to congestions in and/or jamming of the radio frequency spectrum that they use.

This issue was discussed with Member States in the context of Directive 1999/5/EC (1) (the R&TTE Directive) in September 2000. At the time, it was judged that additional regulations to protect specific applications such as security alarms from harmful interference and to ensure access to emergency services were not necessary as it was deemed that market forces would already ensure this.

The Commission however intends to raise this issue again in the next meeting with Member States, scheduled for June 2004, so as to assess whether recent developments would require the Commission to reconsider the matter.

Furthermore, the Commission is currently studying the harmonisation across the EU of conditions of use of the radio spectrum for short-range devices including security alarms. Part of this analysis will consider how best to enable the effective operation of such devices via agreed technical parameters and appropriate radio spectrum frequencies.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/663 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/663

---

(2004/C 84 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/04

by Marjo Matikaineri-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Export subsidies for oats

Oats are grown on a very large scale in Finland. With the aid of export subsidies they have been exported to, among other places, Canada and the United States. At present the Commission is unwilling to pay export subsidies because cereals are in short supply in the EU area on account of last season's crop failures. Finland was one place where crops did not fail, with the result that farmers' grain bins are full of good oats.

Since oats are not used in central Europe, there is no significant market for them in southern Europe and other parts of the EU that would in any event need to import cereals. The Finnish oat harvest is at the moment lying in the farmers' grain bins because oats do not go to the EU regions that need cereals and the substantially lower export subsidies are insufficient to enable them to be exported to North America. It ought to be possible to export oats to North America because they are used there in massive quantities.

What specific measures will the Commission take, and within what time-frame, to enable oats to be exported to North America? Will it continue to pay export subsidies for oats and raise them back to their former level with a view to reviving full-scale exports to North America? If so, within what time-frame? This matter is urgent.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

Contrary to all other cereals, the EU had a normal 2003/2004 harvest of oats both in terms of quantity and quality, leading to a certain export surplus from Finland and Sweden. Indeed, the EU cereal production in the EU decreased from 209 million tonnes to 183 million tonnes. For the first time in many years, the EU overall production fell significantly below internal consumption (about 190 million tonnes). This led to a critical supply situation, in particular for feed grains.

The Commission recognised that additional internal demand for oats is limited since oats have limitations in normal animal feed formulation. Consequently, the Commission opened the oats export tender on 15 October 2003, allowing subsidized exports as from the beginning of the oats harvest. Until 12 March 2004, the Commission granted export refunds for a total quantity of 247 840 tonnes. This quantity constitutes a major part of the oats surplus during the campaign.

Of course, and taking account of the EU cereal deficit, the Commission intends to encourage additional internal oats use in compound feed. In addition, the oats market is a particular one, where there is only one buyer (United States), and world prices are fixed in this market. Consequently, the Commission's management of the oats export tender intends to support oats prices in Finland and Sweden, but maximizing the competitive element in export tenders in order to have a minimal impact on world prices. The Commission intends to pursue this policy until the end of the 2003/2004 campaign. The oats export tender will be open until 24 June 2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/664 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/664

---

(2004/C 84 E/0748)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0722/04

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   COM in olive oil

Quite apart from the fact that it does not take into account the realities of Spanish production, the proposed reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil has a number of other harmful features (such as retention of the current arrangements for private storage, even though those arrangements have not made it possible for swift, flexible action to be taken in response to any disruption in the market).

Would the Commission reconsider its proposal by bringing the arrangements for the private storage of olive oil into line with the realities of the market and by incorporating an automatic opening and closing price mechanism?

Furthermore, under the Commission proposal the number of olive trees in an olive grove may not differ by more than 10 % from the number registered on 1 January 2005 in the olive-oil GIS. Is the Commission not aware that, in restricting the increase in the number of olive trees to 10 % when an olive grove is replanted, it is seriously damaging the interests of Spanish olive groves by preventing the replanting of groves which cannot be adapted to modern cultivation techniques?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The private storage scheme is intended for the management of crisis. Therefore, its triggering shall not be automatic but dependent on a decision by the Management Committee which, after assessing the market situation, may decide on the appropriateness of opening the scheme. On the other hand, the Commission proposes to maintain unchanged the reference prices. This is consistent with market trends over the last years where, in spite of a mounting demand, olive oil prices have remained relatively stable thanks to the very important increase of production.

In 1998, the Council decided that under the Common market organization (CMO) no aid may be paid to additional olive trees or the relevant areas planted after 1 May 1998, with the exception of areas covered by a programme approved by the Commission. This very principle is embodied in the current proposal for both the decoupled payment and the aid for olive groves. From 1 May 1998 onwards, farmers planting additional olive trees have to be able to operate in the market with no Community support.

Concerning the aid for olive groves, the Commission proposal requires that the number of trees does not differ by more than 10 % from the number registered on 1 January 2005. This provision aims to ensure that the structural features of the grove which made it eligible for support due to their environmental or social characteristics are maintained in future.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/665 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/665

---

(2004/C 84 E/0749)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Aid for producer organisations in the fisheries sector

For some time, Italian fisheries associations have been striving to save their trade, not least through a correct and precise interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1). This Article lays down certain parameters under which aid may be granted by Member States for three years following the recognition of the producer organisation.

According to the consistent interpretation of the relevant Commissioner, Fischler, this aid must be considered cumulative, as evidenced by the decision of the European Commission of 11 July 2001 SG (2001) D/289689 (State aid No 768/2000 - España (Baleares)); the decision of 20 February 2001 (State aid No 529/2000 - Ireland); the decision of 3 April 2002 (State aid No 803/2001 - España (Andalucía)); and the decision of 3 April 2002 (State aid No 820/2001 - Portugal).

However, the associations mentioned above learnt from the note of 5 February 2004 No 017040 that the Director of DG Fisheries Verstraete, in the interpretation of Article 15 of the above Regulation, intends to restrict the field of application to the more restrictive of the two parameters in question, clearly contrasting with the amount indicated by Commissioner Fischler.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What is the correct interpretation and application of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the correct interpretation and application of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999?

| 2. | Which of the two interpretations provided by Commissioner Fischler and by the Director of DG Fisheries respectively should be taken into consideration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Which of the two interpretations provided by Commissioner Fischler and by the Director of DG Fisheries respectively should be taken into consideration?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that:

| — | the interpretation to be given to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2)) was sent above Mrs Verstraete's signature to the Italian authorities on 5 February (under the reference 17040) and to Legapesca on 16 February (under the reference 017049); |
| --- | --- |

—

the interpretation to be given to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2)) was sent above Mrs Verstraete's signature to the Italian authorities on 5 February (under the reference 17040) and to Legapesca on 16 February (under the reference 017049);

| — | there is no contradiction between these replies and the Commission Decisions to which the Honourable Member refers. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no contradiction between these replies and the Commission Decisions to which the Honourable Member refers.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/665 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/665

---

(2004/C 84 E/0750)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Information on the performance reserve for the Lazio Region

Community regulations on the use of the Structural Funds (Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1)) provide for 4 % of the total resources of the Community support framework for 2000-2006 to be set aside for mid-term payment on the basis of the performance — in terms of the effectiveness of the form of assistance, proper management and financial implementation — of the regional and central authorities receiving funding.

This form of premium, referred to in Italy precisely as a ‘reward’ and accompanied by an extra payment by the Italian Treasury, would appear to have been granted recently to the Lazio Region in recognition of its outstanding achievements under Docup Objective 2, with EUR 314 million being committed to the region, of which over EUR 290 million was provided by European funding, and 1 527 projects funded in addition to investments totalling EUR 403 800 000 and the designation of five industrial zones and three production zones as excellent (source: www.tesoro.it).

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | In view of the above, can the Commission state how much has been paid by the EU to the Lazio Region pursuant to Article 7(5) of the above Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the above, can the Commission state how much has been paid by the EU to the Lazio Region pursuant to Article 7(5) of the above Regulation?

| 2. | Which other Italian and European regions have been recognised in this way and how much of the 4 % set aside have they received? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Which other Italian and European regions have been recognised in this way and how much of the 4 % set aside have they received?

| 3. | Is it planned that a general report be published on the payment of the 4 % set aside to the various European authorities rewarded in this way? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it planned that a general report be published on the payment of the 4 % set aside to the various European authorities rewarded in this way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

Council Regulation (EC) Nol260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) states that the Commission will allocate the performance reserve not later than 31 March 2004 on the basis of proposals from the Member State.

On 23 March 2004, the Commission decided the allocations of the performance reserve (3). The Lazio region received EUR 16 118 352. All Italian and most EU regions received allocations from the performance reserve. In total, over 90 % of Structural Funds programmes received an allocation. The precise amounts are outlined in the text of the decision.

A report on the operation of the performance reserve is being prepared for discussion with the Member States in the context of the Committee of the Development and Conversion of the regions. This report will be available in May 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3)  C(2004) 883 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/666 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/666

---

(2004/C 84 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Funding of projects designed to transfer water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain

How many projects relating to the transfer of water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain have been financed by means of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Up to the present, the Commission has not taken a decision to support through the Cohesion fund or through the Structural Funds any project dealing with water transfer from the Ebro river to the East and South-Spanish zones.

The Spanish authorities have submitted four proposals for co-financing regarding this project that are currently being evaluated by the services of the Commission.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/667 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/667

---

(2004/C 84 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Support for regions which will not be included in Structural Fund Objective 1 on account of the so-called ‘statistical effect’

What transitional financial arrangements will apply to the regions which cease to qualify for Structural Fund Objective 1 status on account of the so-called ‘statistical effect’ which is due to the arrival of regions from the new Member States whose average income levels are well below the current Community average?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission adopted proposals for the future of cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013 in the Third Report on economic and social cohesion which was adopted on 18 February 2004 and transmitted to Parliament and to the Council. Among the proposals, the Commission considers that temporary support should apply to regions where per capita the gross domestic product (GDP) would have been below 75 % of the Community average in a Union of Fifteen but above 75 % in a Union of Twenty-five (the so-called statistical effect of enlargement). These are regions where objective circumstances have not changed, although their GDP per head will be relatively higher in the enlarged Union. In the interest of equity, and to allow the regions concerned to complete the process of convergence, the Commission proposes that support would be higher than decided in Berlin in 1999 for the so-called ‘phasing out’ regions of the current generation (1).

---

(1)  COM(2004) 107: A new partnership for cohesion.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/667 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/667

---

(2004/C 84 E/0753)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Student participation in the Erasmus programme

Has the Commission drawn up any precise statistics concerning the number of European university students who have benefited from the Erasmus programme in the period since it was set up? Has it produced a breakdown by Member State and by region? If so, what are the figures involved?

Has the Commission any specific data relating to the Valencia region which could enable a comparison to be made with other regions?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that a range of statistics on Erasmus mobility, including a breakdown by Member State, is available on the Web site of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The Internet address is as follows: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/staten.html).

As far as a breakdown of the statistics by region is concerned, there exists a more detailed database, which is available in all the national Socrates/Erasmus agencies.

Consequently, as far as Valencia is concerned, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact the Spanish national agency at the following address:

| Agencia Nacional Erasmus |
| --- |
| Consejo de Coordinacion Universitaria |
| Ciudad Universitaria s/n |
| E-28040 Madrid |
| Contact person: Ms Maria Teresa Diez Iturrioz |
| Tel: (34-91)453 98 00 |
| E-mail: mariateresa.diez@cuniv.mec.es |

Agencia Nacional Erasmus

Consejo de Coordinacion Universitaria

Ciudad Universitaria s/n

E-28040 Madrid

Contact person: Ms Maria Teresa Diez Iturrioz

Tel: (34-91)453 98 00

E-mail: mariateresa.diez@cuniv.mec.es

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/668 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/668

---

(2004/C 84 E/0754)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   The EU's future regional policy for the outermost Mediterranean regions

Following the imminent enlargement of the European Union there will be a considerable reduction in transfers of funding to the current Member States in the form of structural and cohesion funds. Michel Barnier (Commissioner) has proposed that regions which lose their Objective 1 status (such as the Valencia region in Spain) should continue to receive aid on a degressive basis.

In the light of this and bearing in mind the EU's post-2007 financial perspective, has the Commission carried out a detailed analysis of the impact which the reduction in aid and funding will have on the economies of the Mediterranean regions which have hitherto enjoyed Structural Fund Objective 1 status but which will lose it on account of their income level? It should be borne in mind that they will still be outlying regions with income levels which will continue to be inadequate.

If this is the case, what will the impact be (in both qualitative and quantitative terms) on the Valencia region?

In the case of regions which will gradually cease to receive funding, what action is the Commission proposing to take in order to ensure that their economies are not significantly damaged?

Furthermore, how does the Commission consider it should compensate for the radical drop in financial aid for the above regions which will occur when the Cohesion Fund is wound up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission has just published the Third Cohesion Report on economic and social cohesion (1), in accordance with article 159 of the EC Treaty, which includes a detailed analysis of the impact and value added of Structural Funds. This report also includes a proposal for the reform of Cohesion for the period 2007-2013.

The Commission proposes that regions with per capita GDP less than 75 % of the Community average, should be eligible to the new ‘Convergence and Competitiveness’ objective. The decision concerning the eligibility of these regions will be determined on the basis of the most recent data available at the time.

According to the latest data (for 2001) as published in the Third Cohesion Report, the Comunidad Valenciana stands at 81,1 % of the average EU15 GDP per capita, or to 89 % for EU25. The Commission proposes that regions currently eligible for Objective 1 not fulfilling the criteria for the convergence objective would benefit from a higher level of support (under the heading ‘phasing in’) on a transitional basis, under the new ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ objective. The transitional arrangements ‘would follow a path comparable to that for regions no longer eligible for Objective 1 in the period 2000-2006’.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 107 final: ‘A new partnership for cohesion’.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/669 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/669

---

(2004/C 84 E/0755)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0766/04

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Financing of the Llubí-Crestaxt-Pollença watercourse (Balearic Islands)

In the early months of 2003 the European Commission took the decision to finance, via the Cohesion Fund, the Llubí-Crestaxt-Pollença watercourse on the island of Majorca, Spain. The Government of the Balearic Islands opened the project to public tender and awarded a contract for the work, which is 40 % complete. This project represents a decisive step towards achieving maximum efficiency in Majorca's water management and distribution system. The idea is to complete the transversal artery that runs across Majorca for 90 kilometres along the base of the Tramuntana Sierra collecting water from various sources and regulating the levels of several aquifers, and thereby to satisfy various demands. Majorca's Mediterranean climate and its dependency on the tourist industry mean that the island experiences high levels of demand in the summer with irregular rainfall, alongside periods of water shortage lasting several years followed by a few years with abundant rainfall. The aim of the project is precisely to incorporate in a single system the majority of surface water resources and a portion of the groundwater resources so that the surface water surpluses generated in rainy periods can infiltrate into strategic high-capacity karstic aquifers, thereby returning them to their highest piezometric levels and acting as a reserve for the driest periods. The project is designed to meet the demand for water by reducing the over-exploitation of water resources through the infiltration of water into the aquifers exploited. After a change in the regional government following the elections of June 2003, work on the construction of the northern stretch of the transversal artery was halted and a modification proposed that fundamentally alters the aims of the original project: the watercourse would no longer be interconnected with the Crestaxt aquifer but would be connected up with a new desalination plant to be established at Alcudia, leaving Pollença with no guarantee of water supply. This modification is designed to route water to Palma from the future desalination plant at Alcudia in the low season, when its production is not absorbed by the north of the island. The modification did not form the subject of a new public procurement procedure, and neither was it supported by any technical justification. Is the Commission prepared to finance the work in question despite the substantial change in the project and its objectives? Will it investigate whether the fact that the work in question is totally different from that approved in 2002 constitutes an violation of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission in fact approved Cohesion Fund part-financing of the Llubi-Crestatx (Sa Pobla) water canalisation project as a complete project in itself. No application for assistance was made for any Crestatx (Sa Pobla) — Pollença project.

Community assistance must be for the work as initially scheduled and approved. Any modification of the project actually subsidised, whether at the level of the work itself or in relation to the objectives proposed, has to be examined by us to ensure that the Community rules are respected. We have not so far received any application for modification of the initial decision. If the Spanish authorities were to submit one we would of course examine it.

It should also be borne in mind that for any project carried out within Union territory, whether given Community financial assistance or not, the legislation in force must be respected, including that on environmental matters and award of public contracts.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/670 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/670

---

(2004/C 84 E/0756)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0768/04

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Extradition of war criminals to Denmark

The European Arrest Warrant, which entered into force on 1 January 2004, is a very welcome initiative, in that it should not be possible for the [removal of] physical [controls at] borders between the Member States to be exploited by criminals in order to evade punishment. This problem has increased in recent years with the implementation of the rules on freedom of movement within the EU. To that extent the European Arrest Warrant is a step in the right direction.

However, I am concerned about the practical implementation of the Arrest Warrant, and wish to put the following questions to the Commission:

| 1. | What are the Commission's plans with regard to the seven Member States which had not introduced the Arrest Warrant before the deadline of 31 December 2003? How many Member States have now introduced it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the Commission's plans with regard to the seven Member States which had not introduced the Arrest Warrant before the deadline of 31 December 2003? How many Member States have now introduced it?

| 2. | Can the Commission give assurances that, with the entry into force of the Arrest Warrant, it will be possible for Denmark to extradite war criminals from Germany in respect of whom extradition has been requested since the end of the Second World War? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission give assurances that, with the entry into force of the Arrest Warrant, it will be possible for Denmark to extradite war criminals from Germany in respect of whom extradition has been requested since the end of the Second World War?

| 3. | Is it true that the German police, referring to the Arrest Warrant, have already applied for the first extradition of a Danish citizen to Germany on charges of fraud? Is this possible at a time when Germany has still not yet implemented the Arrest Warrant? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it true that the German police, referring to the Arrest Warrant, have already applied for the first extradition of a Danish citizen to Germany on charges of fraud? Is this possible at a time when Germany has still not yet implemented the Arrest Warrant?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

| 1. | To date, ten Member States have already implemented the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (1) and have communicated their respective legislation to the Commission.
  In monitoring the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, according to Article 34(3) of the Framework Decision, the Commission shall submit a report to the Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2004 at the latest. In this report the Commission will highlight any practical difficulties the Member States have faced during the period of implementation and also the reasons for their non-compliance with the time limit.
  The remainder of the Member States have confirmed that they would be ready by Summer 2004. As to the new Member States, Hungary has already passed its legislation, which comes into force on 1 May 2004, while the others have indicated that they could be ready by the same date which is the date of accession ... |
| --- | --- |

1.

To date, ten Member States have already implemented the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (1) and have communicated their respective legislation to the Commission.

In monitoring the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, according to Article 34(3) of the Framework Decision, the Commission shall submit a report to the Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2004 at the latest. In this report the Commission will highlight any practical difficulties the Member States have faced during the period of implementation and also the reasons for their non-compliance with the time limit.

The remainder of the Member States have confirmed that they would be ready by Summer 2004. As to the new Member States, Hungary has already passed its legislation, which comes into force on 1 May 2004, while the others have indicated that they could be ready by the same date which is the date of accession ...

| 2. | The Honourable Member wonders whether the Commission can guarantee that persons who committed war crimes in World War II will be surrendered to Denmark from Germany. The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the statements made in relation to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
  Each Member State had the opportunity at the time of adoption by the Council of the Framework Decision to make a statement indicating that, as executing Member State, it would continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before a certain date in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.
  As Germany did not make such a statement, the Commission sees no obstacle preventing the Danish authorities from issuing a European Arrest Warrant in relation to German citizens to be arrested in a Member State that has actually implemented the Framework Decision. As soon as Germany implements it, the European Arrest Warrant will also be executable in its territory. However, the executing judicial authority may refuse the execution of the European Arrest Warrant on grounds of refusal in accordance with the Framework Decision (e.g. statute-barred act). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Honourable Member wonders whether the Commission can guarantee that persons who committed war crimes in World War II will be surrendered to Denmark from Germany. The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the statements made in relation to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.

Each Member State had the opportunity at the time of adoption by the Council of the Framework Decision to make a statement indicating that, as executing Member State, it would continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before a certain date in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.

As Germany did not make such a statement, the Commission sees no obstacle preventing the Danish authorities from issuing a European Arrest Warrant in relation to German citizens to be arrested in a Member State that has actually implemented the Framework Decision. As soon as Germany implements it, the European Arrest Warrant will also be executable in its territory. However, the executing judicial authority may refuse the execution of the European Arrest Warrant on grounds of refusal in accordance with the Framework Decision (e.g. statute-barred act).

| 3. | Regarding the Honourable Member's last question, the Commission is not aware of the case mentioned. The German judicial authorities, can not, however, issue a European Arrest Warrant until Germany implements the Framework Decision. The legal basis for arrest and extradition for the German authorities still results from existing instruments relating to extradition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Regarding the Honourable Member's last question, the Commission is not aware of the case mentioned. The German judicial authorities, can not, however, issue a European Arrest Warrant until Germany implements the Framework Decision. The legal basis for arrest and extradition for the German authorities still results from existing instruments relating to extradition.

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 18.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/671 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/671

---

(2004/C 84 E/0757)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0770/04

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject:   EU citizenship

By 1 May 2004, a number of urgent cases relating to EU citizenship will need to have been clarified. Will the Commission therefore state what are the EU citizenship rights after 1 May 2004 in the following two cases: first, a lady who was born in Russia, moved to Latvia and chose to stay there without citizenship and later married an EU citizen and moved to Ireland where she now has residency rights but requires a visa to travel outside Ireland and, second, Latvian citizens living in Ireland or in any other EU Member State, and their EU citizenship status?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

According to article 17 of the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

In his first example, the Honourable Member seems to refer to the particular situation of stateless persons in Latvia. The Commission is fully aware of this situation. A woman born in Russia and residing in Latvia without citizenship who later marries an EU citizen and moves with him to Ireland, will only benefit from EU citizenship rights, in her own right, if she acquires EU citizenship herself either by marriage or by any other means laid down in the Member State's legislation on acquisition of citizenship. If she remains stateless or retains a third country nationality, she will still be a beneficiary of Community law on the right of free movement and residence and is entitled to reside in Ireland by virtue of being the spouse of an EU citizen.

If she wants to travel to another Member State from Ireland she will effectively require a visa, since Ireland does not apply, by its own choice, the Community legislation on uniform short-stay visas, external border controls and circulation within an area where internal border controls on persons have been abolished (‘Schengen acquis’). However, it should be stressed that, due to her status as the spouse of an EU citizen, she should be granted every facility for obtaining any necessary visas, which shall also be issued free of charge.

In the second example, the Latvian citizen living in Ireland or in any other Member State shall become an EU citizen as from accession of Latvia to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and shall benefit directly from the rights attached to EU citizenship as laid down in Part Two of the EC Treaty and, in particular, from the right to free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States (subject, where relevant, to applicable transitional measures for workers) and the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal and European Parliament elections in the Member State where he resides.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/672 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/672

---

(2004/C 84 E/0758)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Return of property by Turkey

Many of the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian people who were deported in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 were liquidated. The Turkish State later seized their property on the grounds that those who had been liquidated had disappeared and were no longer looking after their property. These seizures took place, ‘inter alia’, between 1951 and 1960. In official documents and decisions, the Turkish State calls this property ‘surrendered Armenian assets’.

Will the Commission consider taking measures to induce Turkey to return this property to the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian owners?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The question of the confiscated and seized properties of non Moslem communities in Turkey has been repeatedly mentioned in the Commission's Regular Report in past years.

In particular, in its Regular Report of October 2002, the Commission mentioned ‘in the case of non-Moslem religious communities, only properties declared under Law No 2762 of 1936 are legally recognised, and all properties not listed in 1936 have been taken over by the Turkish State or may be confiscated. Armenian, Greek and Catholic properties have been confiscated, or are at risk’. In its Report of November 2003, the Commission mentioned that ‘the question of confiscated properties, which is a major concern of non-Moslem religious communities, has still not been addressed. Given these communities’ lack of legal status, their properties are permanently at risk of being confiscated and attempts to recover property by judicial means encounter numerous obstacles.'

The Commission has recently been informed that as part of their efforts to address the problems of the non-Moslem communities, the Turkish authorities have recently decided to compile an inventory of the properties confiscated and seized since 1936.

The Commission will continue to follow this matter closely.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/673 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/673

---

(2004/C 84 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/04

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Lift safety

The European Committee for Standardisation has produced a safety norm for existing lifts, the SNEL. This standard helps countries identify the risks of existing lifts and legislate to improve their safety. Recommendation 95/216/EC (1) accompanying Directive 95/16/EC (2) obviously does not mention this new norm. In view of the number of fatal accidents that have occurred in recent years and as some countries have enacted legislation in this sphere or are in the process of doing so, it would appear to be essential to update the recommendation. This would help policy-makers determine the most appropriate measures to take to minimise the risks linked to existing lifts in compliance with Norm EN 81-80, which was ratified on 3 November 2003.

Can the Commission give an undertaking that the recommendation will be updated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Commission Recommendation 95/216/EC of 8 June 1995 (3) concerns existing lifts, i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the lifts Directive 95/16/EC (4). This recommendation calls on Member States to take all necessary action on their territory to ensure a satisfactory level of maintenance for existing lifts and to improve the safety of those lifts.

The European Committee for Standardisation has recently adopted a new standard, EN 81-80, which concerns improving the safety of existing lifts. Even though this standard does not have the same status as the harmonised standards adopted under Directive 95/16/EC, it provides advice and information which will certainly be of great value for all parties concerned in the implementation of Recommendation 95/216/EC. The Commission will closely examine the possibility of updating its recommendation to include a reference to the new standard. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the decision taken following this examination.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 20.6.1995, p. 37.

(2)  OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.6.1995.

(4)  European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/CEC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts, OJ L 213, 7.9.1995.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/673 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/673

---

(2004/C 84 E/0760)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering

The Netherlands Agriculture Minister recently sent an overview of rendering charges to the Netherlands Second Chamber (23 February 2004). The overview shows that there are substantial differences between the Member States as regards the charges made for rendering and associated costs.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the great differences between the Member States as regards the rendering charges which are paid by farmers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the great differences between the Member States as regards the rendering charges which are paid by farmers?

| 2. | Do the Member States follow the guidelines laid down by the Commission on 24 December 2002, including the amendments included as of 1 January 2004?
  If not, what does the Commission plan to do to ensure that these guidelines are followed?
  If so, does the Commission not take the view that, given the major differences, it is time to work towards further harmonisation of these charges in the short term? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the Member States follow the guidelines laid down by the Commission on 24 December 2002, including the amendments included as of 1 January 2004?

If not, what does the Commission plan to do to ensure that these guidelines are followed?

If so, does the Commission not take the view that, given the major differences, it is time to work towards further harmonisation of these charges in the short term?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not have an overview of charges made for rendering and associated costs, in the different Member States. If the Honourable Member has such information, would he please forward it to the Commission.

All Member States except Luxembourg have accepted in writing to respect the guidelines referred to by the Honourable Member. As to Luxembourg, the Commission has just proposed appropriate measures.

It would not seem that differences in the costs charged by renderers in various Member States could properly be dealt with through State aid provisions. The play of competition forces should ensure that comparable prices are charged in comparable situations.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/674 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/674

---

(2004/C 84 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/04

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Application for a grant by Mr Doriano Cataffo

My office has received a question from the lawyers' firm of Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen of Augsburg, acting on behalf of its client Mr Bernhard Oswald, Pfarrer-Steinacker-Str. 15a, D-86551 Aichach, Germany.

In 2002, Mr Oswald instructed Mr Doriano Cataffo, Via R. Ricci 46, I-84129 Salerno, Italy, to apply to the Commission for a grant. Using the money, Mr Oswald intended to buy a plot of land at Herzog-Max-Str. 7, D-86551 Aichach/Unterwittelsbach, Germany, in order to build a guesthouse there. Mr Cataffo had promised him that he would be able to obtain EU funding for the project under the Community Support Framework 2000-2006.

Although Mr Cataffo has been paid for his work, it does not appear that any application has been made. Mr Oswald therefore wishes to bring an action against Mr Cataffo.

I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions in order to clarify the situation:

| 1. | Did Mr Cataffo submit an application for a grant as described above, on behalf of Mr Oswald? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did Mr Cataffo submit an application for a grant as described above, on behalf of Mr Oswald?

| 2. | If so, was the application approved, and has the money been paid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, was the application approved, and has the money been paid?

| 3. | Is it in principle possible for aid to be granted for such building projects? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it in principle possible for aid to be granted for such building projects?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware of the activities of Mr Cataffo, who, according to Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen, has acted in similar ways on a number of occasions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware of the activities of Mr Cataffo, who, according to Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen, has acted in similar ways on a number of occasions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission has found no evidence that the project quoted by the Honourable Member has been co-financed by Structural Funds through the current 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme for Bavaria. The Bavarian authorities responsible for the management of the projects supported by the programme are not aware of a request in this respect. There is no evidence that any other EU aid instrument available to Bavarian authorities has been involved.

Any submission for obtaining funds has to be addressed to the designated managing authority in Bavaria responsible for the above programme.

Mr. Cataffo has come to the attention of the Commission on a previous occasion as a result of Written Question E-2566/03 submitted by the Honourable Member (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/675 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/675

---

(2004/C 84 E/0762)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0809/04

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Terrestrial trunked radio masts

The Commission, in its implementation report on Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1), limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 300 GHz), Section 8.3, states that ‘recent findings in the extremely low frequency area ... have to be evaluated.’ It further states that the Commission will review its recommendations ‘taking into account the latest scientific data and advice.’

TETRA is being introduced in the UK to serve the police and emergency services. It operates at ultra high frequency (395 Mhz) pulses of around 17,6Hz, a frequency which has been shown as causing damage to the nervous and immune systems in human beings. The UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones in their Government-commissioned study of 2000, the Stewart Report, said that modulation around the frequency of 16Hz ‘should be avoided’ because of possible health impacts.

In spite of this, 3 000 masts are being erected across the UK, 700 in my constituency (Scotland) amidst growing public concern that the system has never been properly evaluated on health grounds. Meanwhile amongst police personnel who are already using the system, symptoms associated with exposure to mobile-communications-type radiation levels such as sleep disruption, migraine headaches and so on are already being reported.

The regulations governing public exposure to electromagnetic fields were fixed prior to the introduction of TETRA. In light of its own report on the implementation of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC, would the Commission agree that, in the interests of public health, a moratorium be placed on further development of this system until a proper evaluation of health risks has been carried out?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

On 12 July 1999 the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EC limiting the exposure of the general public to non-ionising radiation with the view of protecting human health in a frequency range of 0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (Ghz). This also covers the frequencies mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Scientific Committee on Toxicology-Ecotoxicology and the Environment confirmed on 30 November 2001 that ‘the additional information which has become available on carcinogenic and other non-thermal effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation frequencies in the last years does not justify a revision of the exposure limits set by the Commission’. This view was generally supported in a conference on mobile communication in January 2004 (2) and by a series of expert reports recently produced in some Member States.

An implementation report on the Council Recommendation was published in March 2003 focusing on measures taken in Member States. This report states in paragraph 8.3 that some recent findings in the extremely low frequency area have to be further evaluated. This refers in particular to extreme low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) originating from power lines.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently conducting a major assessment relating to EMF, both in the low and radio frequency range. The Commission is following closely this project. It is to be expected that the outcome of this work will provide key elements to determine eventual further steps.

Considerable research work has been and continues to be undertaken to investigate possible long term effects on health of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The Commission is following closely any new scientific results in the domain to react, if necessary, to any new scientific evidence not taken to date into consideration. Once finalised (2004-2006), the projects supported by the Community under the 5th Framework Programme for Research (FP5) should provide an important input to address the knowledge gap and will also contribute to the related activities of the WHO.

In addition, under the 6th Framework Programme, the new Coordination Action on EMF (EMF-NET) aimed at improving the co-ordination of the results of the research activities related to the biological effects of electromagnetic fields has just started (2004-2008). The consortium involves all the co-ordinators of the EU (FP5) funded active projects, and of major research projects at national level (Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Finland, United Kingdom, Hungary). In addition, it links to other international activities, such as COST 281 Action, WHO EMF activities, associations of industries and manufacturers, regulatory bodies, scientific associations, and trade union associations. This network will, ‘inter alia’, review European and national EMF studies and support informed decision making for regulation and risk communication by health and environmental authorities, consumer associations and individuals.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/emfworkshop/index.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/676 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/676

---

(2004/C 84 E/0763)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Infringement of European legislation on phyto sanitary products in the ‘Abac’ case (Valencia)

It was recently reported in Valencia that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture was allegedly involved in the ‘Fabra’ case, in which the president of the Castellón regional government apparently asked the Ministry that the insecticide ‘Abac’ (based on abamectin), marketed by the company Naranjax, be granted marketing authorisation without having passed the relevant toxicity tests. It emerges that this phytosanitary product had been refused authorisation three times before the intervention of the president of the regional government. In actual fact other products with exactly the same composition manufactured under other names have never obtained authorisation from the Ministry because they exceed the toxicity limits. Furthermore, according to information revealed by the judicial process, it appears that ‘Abac’ began to be sold before it had even received the disputed authorisation, which constitutes a twofold irregularity, since the product was on sale for a certain period of time without a licence and without the relevant tests being carried out.

If this really proves to be the case, it may constitute a serious hazard for public health and the environment, an infringement of the principles of at least Directive 2002/79/EC (1) (even the earlier versions) amending the Annexes as regards the fixing of maximum levels for certain pesticide residues. According to the Directive the maximum pesticide residue level for abamectin, the main ingredient of ‘Abac’, should be 0,01 mg/kg.

Quite apart from the legal proceedings and bearing in mind that the Ministry of Agriculture has not yet publicly revealed either the actual composition of ‘Abac’, the abamectin content or its reasons for approving the conformity of the product, can the Commission say:

| — | whether it does not consider that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, in view of its concealment of information, may have committed a serious infringement of at least Community legislation on limit values for phytosanitary products; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not consider that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, in view of its concealment of information, may have committed a serious infringement of at least Community legislation on limit values for phytosanitary products;

| — | what steps it intends to take in response to this case? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it intends to take in response to this case?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market (2) provides that active substances may only be used in plant protection where it has been demonstrated that the use has no unacceptable effects on human health or the environment. Pending Community evaluations and Commission Decisions on individual substances that were already on the market in July 1993, the Directive permitted national rules to stay in place on a temporary basis. Abamectin is on the third priority list of substances established by the Commission under the Directive. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3), industry indicated its interest in supporting the substance in the review process. Dossiers had to be submitted to the rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, by 25 November 2003. The rapporteur will examine the dossier and send its draft assessment report to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commission will decide on the acceptability of the use of abamectin in plant protection on the basis of an evaluation of that report by the EFSA.

The Commission is aware that in Spain several plant protection products containing abamectin are authorized. For all these products, including the product ‘Abac’, Spain can only grant authorizations if the use of the product does not leave residues on the treated crops exceeding the maximum residue limit for the crops involved. The maximum residue limits for abamectin are established in Commission Directive 2002/79/EC of 2 October 2002 amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards the fixing of maximum levels for certain pesticide residues in and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and are varying between 0,1 and 0,005 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) depending on the crop or foodstuff.

It cannot be excluded that certain plant protection products containing abamectine would not have been authorized. In fact in such cases, insufficient information may have been provided to the authorities or the information submitted may have shown that there are particular problems related to the specific product.

The Commission is not aware that there would be any particular safety problem with products containing abamectin requiring immediate action before the review process in the framework of the Directive would be finalised.

---

(1)  OJ L 291, 28.10.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(3)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/678 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/678

---

(2004/C 84 E/0764)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Extension of San Sebastián airport

In its reply to Written Questions E-2245/03 and E-2246/03 (1), the Commission states that the Spanish authorities consider the purpose of the San Sebastián airport master plan to be its internal restructuring and there are no plans to extend the runway. The Spanish authorities also insist that the plan does not have the same level of detail as a project, and consequently it is not subject to Community legislation on impact assessment.

Nevertheless, the information contained in the master plan shows that:

| — | the purpose of the planned work (parking area, parking platform for aircraft, extension of the terminal building) is to adapt the airport to the increase in air traffic and make it possible for larger aircraft to use the airport (which invariably requires an increase in the size of the runway); |
| --- | --- |

—

the purpose of the planned work (parking area, parking platform for aircraft, extension of the terminal building) is to adapt the airport to the increase in air traffic and make it possible for larger aircraft to use the airport (which invariably requires an increase in the size of the runway);

| — | the work will have an adverse impact on the SCI ES 2120015 and SPA 37 sites given that, as the plan itself acknowledges, it will be necessary to: seal more land, thereby reducing the size of the wetland, with the consequent repercussions on the protected species referred to in Written Question E-1701/02 (2); extend the car-park, which will affect the watercourse that has a direct influence on the ecosystem in which these protected species live; fill in and level off the strip of land at the side of the runway, which will affect the intertidal area adjacent to the SPA, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

the work will have an adverse impact on the SCI ES 2120015 and SPA 37 sites given that, as the plan itself acknowledges, it will be necessary to: seal more land, thereby reducing the size of the wetland, with the consequent repercussions on the protected species referred to in Written Question E-1701/02 (2); extend the car-park, which will affect the watercourse that has a direct influence on the ecosystem in which these protected species live; fill in and level off the strip of land at the side of the runway, which will affect the intertidal area adjacent to the SPA, etc.

The Commission:

| — | In view of these facts, can it continue to affirm that the sole purpose of the master plan submitted is to restructure the airport without extending the runway? |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of these facts, can it continue to affirm that the sole purpose of the master plan submitted is to restructure the airport without extending the runway?

| — | Does it not consider that not treating the master plan as an extension project represents an attempt by the Spanish authorities to carry out the work while side-stepping the legislation on impact assessment? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not consider that not treating the master plan as an extension project represents an attempt by the Spanish authorities to carry out the work while side-stepping the legislation on impact assessment?

| — | Does it not believe that, in view of the possible impact on Natura 2000 sites, the legislation which prevails is at all events Article 6 of the Habitats Directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not believe that, in view of the possible impact on Natura 2000 sites, the legislation which prevails is at all events Article 6 of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

As indicated in its answers to Written Questions E-1701/02, E-3417/02 (3), E-2245/03 and E-2246/03 by the Honourable Members, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to provide complete information on the above-mentioned subject.

The complete issue in question was examined, ‘inter alia’, with the Spanish authorities in the framework of the package meeting held on 23 October 2003. The Commission expressed its concerns regarding compliance with the Community Environmental Law applicable to the case.

The national authorities informed the Commission that they have abandoned the idea to extend the airport runway as well as the extension and closure of the parking area foreseen in the airport Master Plan in order not to affect the nearby Natura 2000 sites. Furthermore, the Member State committed itself to carry out a single environmental impact assessment (EIA) on the remaining activities covered by the project implementing the Master Plan. By letter dated 4 December 2003, the national authorities confirmed this information and announced that the EIA is currently in progress.

Since the Spanish authorities have expressed their intention to submit to the Commission the outcome of the environmental assessment procedure, expected by the 2nd quarter of 2004, the Commission will then examine the legal questions arising from this file regarding the full compliance with Community Environmental Law.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 230.

(2)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 213.

(3)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/679 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/679

---

(2004/C 84 E/0765)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/04

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/680 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/680

---

(2004/C 84 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/04

by Joaquim Piscarreta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/680 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/680

---

(2004/C 84 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0838/04

by Raquel Cardoso (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/681 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/681

---

(2004/C 84 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0839/04

by João Gouveia (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/682 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/682

---

(2004/C 84 E/0769)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0840/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0836/04, P-0837/04, P-0838/04, P-0839/04 and P-0840/04

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

To understand the reasons which led the Commission to adopt new rules on labelling, it is important to bear in mind that, following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the WTO, some wine-producing third countries severely criticised the Regulation's content. In order to clarify the Regulation's content with the third countries, consultation meetings were organised in Geneva.

The third countries considered the Commission's policy on traditional terms to be a further example of the EU attempting to obtain exclusive protection as an intellectual property right under the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), as for geographical indications. This could have jeopardised EU policy on the protection of geographical indications and increased the risk of a WTO panel against the Commission's whole policy on wine labelling.

In the light of comments made by the third countries and in order to avert the serious threat looming for the legal soundness of current labelling legislation, the Commission decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation by creating a system which provides non-discriminatory protection for traditional terms both internally and for imported wines.

The current conditions for third countries' use of traditional terms are equivalent to the previous conditions of use under Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

According to Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (2) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, those conditions include the following:

| (a) | the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications;

| (b) | the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| (c) | if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| (d) | other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met.

In the specific case of the Portuguese traditional terms referred to in the written question to the Commission, several conditions must therefore be met in order for them to be used in third countries. This means that, in order for a traditional term such as ‘Ruby’, ‘Tawny’, ‘Vintage’, ‘Canteiro’ or ‘Frasqueira’ to be used on a liqueur wine other than Port or Madeira, first of all either English or Portuguese must be the official language of the third country and the traditional term must have been used for at least 10 years, or English or Portuguese must be a second language recognised by the legislation of the third country in question and in that case the term must have been used for at least 25 years. The term must also be specific and distinctive, so as not to mislead the consumer if the wine is marketed in Europe. There must likewise be some tradition behind the use of the term in the third country.

The conditions governing use of the traditional term ‘Reserva velha’ by third countries remain unchanged, since that term was already listed in Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/684 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/684

---

(2004/C 84 E/0770)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention

According to the Commission's Scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘freedom, security and justice’ in the European Union, a legislative proposal was to have been submitted by the end of 2001 with a view to Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention (safeguard clause allowing the temporary reintroduction of border controls). More than two years after the expiry of the deadline, Parliament still has not had any proposal of this kind referred to it.

In the meantime, Member States have systematically used — and abused — this safeguard clause at the time of European summits or other international meetings such as the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. This demonstrates — if proof were called for — the need for a Community approach to this question.

What are the reasons for the delay?

Will the Commission submit a proposal for Communitarising Article 2 of the Schengen Convention, and when will it do so?

Can the Commission already indicate the general outlines of such a proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Despite the delay, the Commission is still convinced that Article 2 of the Schengen Convention should be communitarised. For that reason, it announced in the most recent biannual update of its scoreboard to review progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union that it would incorporate such a procedure in the proposal for a regulation on the recasting of the common manual which will be presented before the end of the first half of 2004 (1).

Preparatory work on this proposal with a view to drawing up a code on borders is not yet complete. The Commission is, therefore, unable to give any details on the content of the proposal.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 812 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/685 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/685

---

(2004/C 84 E/0771)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0857/04

by Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/685 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/685

---

(2004/C 84 E/0772)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0858/04

by Teresa Almeida Garrett (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, and ‘rub/; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, and ‘rub/;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions “canteiro”, “frasqueira” and “reserva velha”; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions “canteiro”, “frasqueira” and “reserva velha”;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will “trivialise” the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will “trivialise” the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework;

| 2. | what it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession;

| 3. | what its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0857/04 and P-0858/04

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

To understand the reasons which led the Commission to adopt new rules on labelling, it is important to bear in mind that, following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the WTO, some wine-producing third countries severely criticised the Regulation's content. In order to clarify the Regulation's content with the third countries, consultation meetings were organised in Geneva.

The third countries considered the Commission's policy on traditional terms to be a further example of the EU attempting to obtain exclusive protection as an intellectual property right under the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), as for geographical indications. This could have jeopardised EU policy on the protection of geographical indications and increased the risk of a WTO panel against the Commission's whole policy on wine labelling.

In the light of comments made by the third countries and in order to avert the serious threat looming for the legal soundness of current labelling legislation, the Commission decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation by creating a system which provides non-discriminatory protection for traditional terms both internally and for imported wines.

The current conditions for third countries’ use of traditional terms are equivalent to the previous conditions of use under Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

According to Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (2) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, those conditions include the following:

| (a) | the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications;

| (b) | the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| (c) | if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| (d) | other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met.

In the specific case of the Portuguese traditional terms referred to in the written question to the Commission, several conditions must therefore be met in order for them to be used in third countries. This means that, in order for a traditional term such as ‘Ruby’, Tawny', ‘Vintage’, ‘Canteiro’ or ‘Frasqueira’ to be used on a liqueur wine other than Port or Madeira, first of all either English or Portuguese must be the official language of the third country and the traditional term must have been used for at least 10 years, or English or Portuguese must be a second language recognised by the legislation of the third country in question and in that case the term must have been used for at least 25 years. The term must also be specific and distinctive, so as not to mislead the consumer if the wine is marketed in Europe. There must likewise be some tradition behind the use of the term in the third country.

The conditions governing use of the traditional term ‘Reserva velha’ by third countries remain unchanged, since that term was already listed in Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/687 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/687

---

(2004/C 84 E/0773)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0859/04

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Hair dyes and serious damage to health

On 4 March 2004, the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten carried a report concerning several investigations which indicate that a number of authorised hair dyes cause serious damage to consumers' health. The sector is regulated by the Cosmetics Directive.

In the light of the abovementioned investigations, does the Commission believe that a positive list should be drawn up for hair dyes and that hair dyes should be tested for risk of cancer and allergy before they are approved? The extent of the health hazards are not fully known as the industry will not allow access to its records. Is this information known to the Commission and how many reports concerning allergies caused by hair dyes does the Commission receive each year? Will the Commission also say whether a revision of the Cosmetics Directive will compel the industry to allow public access to reports concerning health problems caused by their products? Finally, will the Commission say when the eighth amendment of the Cosmetics Directive — or other relevant initiatives — is expected to commence, what changes may be proposed and whether the Commission will make the precautionary principle a key feature of the forthcoming revision?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

In 2003 the Commission, together with Member States and representatives of both consumers and industry, discussed a strategy for the systematic evaluation of hair dyes. The strategy was agreed on July 2003 and published on the web-site of the Commission, (Enterprise Directorate-General (DG)) (1). The main element of the strategy is a tiered, modulated approach requiring industry to submit by certain deadlines safety dossiers on hair dyes to be evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP). The overall objective of this strategy is to regulate the use of substances as hair dye ingredients on the basis of the most recent scientific evaluation of safety dossiers.

These dossiers must conform to the ‘Notes of Guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients for their safety evaluation’. The 5th revision of these notes was adopted on 20 October 2003 and was published on the web-site of the Commission, (Health and Consumer Safety DG) (2). The basic toxicological requirements include data requirement on skin sensitization and on genotoxicity/mutagenicity. In its ‘Assessment Strategies for Hair Dyes’ the SCCNFP recommended that ‘in particular, for the risk assessment of hair dyes, the following must be submitted: ... data on genotoxicity — the studies must be consistent with internationally accepted guidelines (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), EU) and/or with modern testing strategies ...’

This strategy received a wide consensus between Member States, consumers and industry represented in the Cosmetics Working Party and should eventually lead to the setting up of a positive list for hair-dyes.

In relation to concrete measures already being taken, the Commission refers as well to the reply given recently in relation to the Written Question E-0391/04 by Mr De Roo (3).

Article 7a of the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC (4) stipulates that the manufacturer or importer of a cosmetic product should keep information on their cosmetic products readily accessible for the competent control authorities of the Member States. This information includes the assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product as well as existing data on undesirable effects on human health resulting from use of the cosmetic products. Allergies are included in this category. Further to the adoption of the 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive 2003/15/EC (5) this information should be made ‘easily accessible to the public by any appropriate means, including electronic means’.

In view of strengthening the competitiveness of the cosmetic sector and improving consumer safety, the Commission will carry out an analysis of the current situation of the sector and the application of the legislation.

---

(1)  http://pharmacos.eudra.org/F3/cosmetic/doc/HairDyeStrategyInternet.pdf

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out242_en.pdf

(3)  See page 386.

(4)  Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(5)  Directive 2003/15/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC, OJ L 66, 11.3.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/688 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/688

---

(2004/C 84 E/0774)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0860/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   The Constitution and funding

In your answer to my Written Question P-0524/04 (1), you detail the constitutional position of a region of the current EU, if it were to become a fully independent state. Could you clarify the position of such a state, in relation to EU funding?

Specifically, if a region within the EU were to become an independent state (therefore outside of the EU), what would happen to the European funding it had been receiving? Would the funding stop immediately, or would it continue to the end of the funding programme, for example the 2000-2006 Structural Funds programme?

What EU funds would a newly independent state be eligible for?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that State, for example, because that territory becomes an independent state, it would no longer covered by the Treaty of accession. Accordingly, the EC Treaty will no longer apply to that territory, including Article 158.

Article 15 8 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall aim at strengthening its economic and social cohesion. Article 159 provides for that action to be supported through the Structural Funds. This article clearly rules out the use of the Structural Funds outside the territory of the European Union.

The principal instruments for Community support for countries outside the Union are found under Heading 4 of the budget, ‘External Action’, or, in the case of aid to candidate countries, under Heading 7, ‘Pre-accession instruments’.

---

(1)  See page 421.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/689 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/689

---

(2004/C 84 E/0775)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0870/04

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Work permits for workers contracted out in Italy

An Austrian firm contracts out workers, the majority of whom are from Austria or the other current Member States of the EU, to companies in the EU, including some in the South Tyrol. The authorities in the South Tyrol have pointed out on numerous occasions that workers from Austria and the rest of the EU require work permits. This decision is impeding the activities of the firm concerned.

| 1. | Is it possible that work permits are required in Italy on the basis of existing transitional arrangements, for example? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible that work permits are required in Italy on the basis of existing transitional arrangements, for example?

| 2. | Or are the Italian authorities in breach of the law by impeding the activities of the Austrian firm? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Or are the Italian authorities in breach of the law by impeding the activities of the Austrian firm?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) obliges Member States to ensure that undertakings which, in the framework of the transnational provision of services, post workers to their territory, respect the conditions of the hiring-out of workers laid down in its legislation. With regard to their content, these rules have to be motivated by the protection of workers or other overriding requirements relating to the public interest, appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain this objective.

Whether a specific national measure fulfils these criteria or not, depends on its precise content, the concrete situations affected by it and the conditions to fulfil in order to comply with the relevant provision.

In general terms, the Commission would like to note that a requirement to obtain work permits for nationals of Member States is not compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty. There are no transitional arrangement with regard the application by Italy of the Directive 96/71/EC and the transitional measures provided for by the Accession Treaty are not applicable with regard the relation between the current Member States.

According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, Italian legislation (in particular Article 4 of decree-law No 72 of 25 February 2000 and Article2 of Law No 196 of 24 June 1997) obliges undertakings supplying temporary work to a user undertaking established in Italy to obtain registration on a list kept for that purpose by the competent department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. To be registered on that list, those companies must obtain a licence, which is granted initially on a temporary basis, then, after the business has operated for two years, for an unlimited period. The granting of that licence is in turn subject to meeting certain conditions aiming at the protection of workers. A licence is however not required, if a temporary employment undertaking can show that it operates under an equivalent administrative measure issued by the competent authority of a Member State other than Italy.

As the Court of Justice has underlined in its case law, the provision of manpower is a particularly sensitive matter from the occupational and social point of view, affecting both relations on the labour market and the lawful interests of the workforce concerned. Consequently, the Court has considered it permissible, under Community law, and amounting to a legitimate choice of policy pursued in the public interest, to subject the provision of manpower to a system of licensing, provided that the host State takes into account the evidence and guarantees already furnished by the provider of services for the pursuit of his activities in the Member State of his establishment.

The Italian Decree-law No 72 of 25 February 2000, transposing Directive 96/71/EC, does not contain additional authorisation requirements with regard to the transnational hiring-out of workers who are nationals of a Member State, and the Commission is not aware of other parts of legislation prescribing work permits for such workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/690 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/690

---

(2004/C 84 E/0776)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0871/04

by José Pacheco Pereira (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, and ‘ruby’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, and ‘ruby’;

| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |
| --- | --- |

—

both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

| — | the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

| — | in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |
| --- | --- |

—

the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |
| --- | --- |

—

in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

| 2. | What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

| 3. | What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers — in particular those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

On the reasons for our adoption of new labelling rules, following notification of Regulation No 753/2002 (1) to the WTO a number of wine-producing third countries voiced severe criticisms. Consultations were then held at Geneva to clarify the content of the Regulation with them.

These countries considered our policy on traditional terms to be a further example of the Union's attempts, as with geographical indications, to obtain exclusive intellectual property right protection covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The Union's policy on protection of geographical indications might well have been endangered and the risk increased of a WTO panel against our entire wine labelling policy.

In the light of these countries' observations we decided to forestall the serious threat emerging to the legal strength of the present labelling legislation by amending the Regulation so that traditional terms would be protected in a non-discriminatory way for both wines produced in the Community and imported wines.

The requirements now in force for third country use of traditional terms are equivalent to those in force beforehand for use of the traditional terms of List A in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

Among these requirements (see Article 1(10) of Regulation No 316/2004 (2) amending Article37(l)(e) of Regulation No 753/2002) are:

| (a) | the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term;

| (b) | the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least ten years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least ten years;

| (c) | if the language of the traditional term is not the official language its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| (d) | that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled.

In the case of the Portuguese traditional terms the Honourable Member mentions a number of requirements must therefore made if they are to be used in the Community by third countries. Thus for a term such as Ruby, Tawny, Vintage, Canteiro or Frasquiera to be used on a liqueur wine other than Port or Madeira, in the first place English or Portuguese as appropriate must be the official language of the third country and the term must have been used for at least ten years, or English or Portuguese must be a second language recognised in the third country's legislation and the term must have been used for at least 25 years. Secondly, the term must be specific and distinctive and not such as to mislead the consumer where the wine is sold in Europe. There must also be some tradition behind use of the term in the third country.

In the case of Reserva velha the requirements for use by third countries in the Community are unchanged, since this term already appeared in List A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/692 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/692

---

(2004/C 84 E/0777)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0872/04

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Precautionary principle

On 18 January, ENEL (Italian national electricity company) submitted to the Commune of Rapolla (Basilicata, Italy) a request for authorisation to build a high-voltage 380 kV electricity line between Matera and S. Sofia.

On 10 May 1990 ENEL requested authorisation for an alternative plan, which would bring the line closer to housing areas in the Commune of Rapolla.

In 1994 a number of Rapolla residents took legal action against the building of the electricity line on the grounds that it was dangerously close to housing areas.

On 28 May 2003 the Potenza Court of Appeal ruled against the building of the section of electricity line to which the complaint referred, partly on the basis of an experts' report which had highlighted the increased risk of child leukaemia arising from prolonged exposure to high-level (0,3-0,4 T) electromagnetic fields. The consultants estimated that the exposure levels at average current intensity levels exceeded 0,4 T (limit established in the implementing decree of 8 July 2003 relating to framework law 36/2001).

A draft presidential decree authorising the building and operation of the alternative plan for the electricity line has been submitted to the President of the Republic for his signature.

Does the Commission not consider that this proposal is contrary to the ‘precautionary principle’ laid down by the Maastricht Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

At EU level, a Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hertz (Hz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz)) was adopted in July 1999, based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. The Recommendation sets out a system of basic restrictions and reference levels for overall public exposure. The level recommended for electricity lines is currently 100μΤ. It also establishes a precautionary approach to possible long-term carcinogenic effects by introducing safety margins in the exposure limits. The Commission keeps this Recommendation under constant review in the light of new scientific evidence available. Considerable research work has been undertaken to investigate a possible impact on health. However, further studies are necessary on the possible long-term effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on public exposure. The World Health Organisation is currently conducting a major assessment relating to EMF. The Commission is following this project closely. It is expected that the outcome of this work will provide key elements to determine possible further steps.

However, it is the Member States' responsibility to ensure that adequate health protection measures are taken. Where reference levels are exceeded, it is recommended that national authorities carry out an assessment of the situation and take the appropriate follow-up measures, such as informing those who are exposed or changing the installation or design of the source of radiation or the way it is operated.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/693

---

(2004/C 84 E/0778)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0875/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Human rights violations in northern Uganda

For more than 16 years a civil war has been raging in the northern regions of Uganda between the Ugandan army (Uganda People's Defence Force, UPDF) and the armed opposition, the LRA. As both sides are struggling to gain control over the population, civilians are caught increasingly frequently in the crossfire between the two groups. 400 000 people have been driven out of the districts of Gulu and Kitgum since 1996; in Gulu alone this represents some 80 % of the population. For a long time the extent of the human rights violations perpetrated by the LRA against the population has diverted attention from similar violations on the government side.

Executions, acts of cruelty and rape by Ugandan soldiers are everyday occurrences.

In addition, opposition groups active mainly in the west and north of the country are also responsible for serious human rights violations, mainly against the civilian population. Civilians with no involvement in the dispute are the victims of deliberate, arbitrary killings. Even children are mistreated, raped, sexually enslaved and forced to bear arms. Escape bids are paid for by many girls and boys with their lives.

In view of this high level of brutality against the civilian population, would the Commission say whether it is already aware of this situation and whether it intends to do something about these crimes, or has already done so?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0646/04 by Mr Mauro. (1)

---

(1)  See page 646.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/694 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/694

---

(2004/C 84 E/0779)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/04

byPaulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   List of deep-sea, pelagic and demersal fish species

Will the Commission provide an exhaustive list, indicating scientific names and common designations, of all species classified as:

| — | deep-water species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 (1)), deep-sea species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (2)) and deepwater fish (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 (3)); |
| --- | --- |

—

deep-water species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 (1)), deep-sea species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (2)) and deepwater fish (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 (3));

| — | demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95) and non-deep-sea demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (4)); |
| --- | --- |

—

demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95) and non-deep-sea demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (4));

| — | pelagic species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001)? |
| --- | --- |

—

pelagic species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6.

(3)  OJ L 222, 17.8.2001, p. 53.

(4)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/694 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/694

---

(2004/C 84 E/0780)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/04

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Health implications of pet bird imports

As a result of recent avian influenza outbreaks in several south-east Asian countries, the Commission has suspended all imports of pet birds from Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Pakistan, China, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. The suspension has immediate effect and is scheduled to be maintained for six months until 15 August 2004.

During the period of suspension, will the Commission carry out a risk assessment of the possible impact that the pet bird trade may have on the spread of avian influenza? Will the Commission also carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the suspension measures in relation to the trade in pet birds?

How does the Commission ensure that the quarantine and health checks carried out in pet-bird exporting countries, on the one hand, and those applied upon entry to the EU, on the other, are sufficient to guarantee that diseases such as avian influenza do not enter the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

An unprecedented epidemic of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza has been ongoing in certain Asian countries, which has already resulted in the loss of more than 100 million poultry and caused several human deaths. Even more worryingly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that, due to the particular subtype of virus in question, the current situation in Asia might eventually lead to an epidemic in the human population, with major health and socio-economic consequences world-wide.

Taking into account the extremely serious consequences that such a disease agent could cause if introduced into the Community, the Commission has adopted a number of precautionary measures, including the suspension of importation of ornamental (pet) birds from the countries concerned. All measures adopted by the Commission have been fully supported by the Member States in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (Scofcah).

The Commission is in the process of assessing the most recent outbreaks of Avian Influenza world-wide. The lessons learned from these events and the opinions delivered by scientists will be the basis for a proposal for a revised legislation on the control of this disease, which the Commission intends to submit to the Council and the Parliament in 2004.

In accordance with the Commission's Communication on impact assessment (1), this proposal will be acompanied by an extended impact assessment. In this context, the Commission will assess the risks as well as the costs and benefits of the measures adopted in the past and of those proposed for the future in relation to this disease. However, it can already be predicted that a precise assessment will often be very difficult or even impossible, due to the rapidly changing and unpredictable nature of the disease agent, scientific uncertainties and shortage of information on many relevant issues, including the risks posed by pet birds and pet birds trade. In this regard, the most appropriate means of protection in the European context will need to be considered.

The measures implemented to prevent the introduction of Avian Influenza via the import of pet birds in accordance with Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry and the conditions for quarantine (2) are kept under continuous review by the Commission at the Scofcah.

So far, highly pathogenic Avian Influenza viruses have not been detected in birds kept under quarantine. However, thanks to these measures other exotic viruses of birds have been detected and their spread in the Community thus prevented.

In accordance with current knowledge and experience, the Commission therefore considers that the current precautions — supplemented as necessary by exceptional safeguard clauses like those recently adopted in relation to the situation in Asia — are the most appropriate to protect the Community from undesired disease agents, including Avian Influenza. Unfortunately, we do not live in a zero risk world so that one cannot exclude either the intentional or unintentional introduction of such a virus, although all necessary precautions are being taken against such an eventuality.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 276 final.

(2)  OJ L 278, 31.10.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/695 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/695

---

(2004/C 84 E/0781)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0892/04

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   European Super-Commissioner

Mr Prodi has just expressed himself in favour of creating a European Super-Commissioner responsible for economic affairs. Does the Commission intend to encourage the creation of an analogous post in the field of social affairs or would the Super-Commissioner for economic affairs also be responsible, in a clear and precise manner, for social affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under Article 217 of the EC Treaty, as last amended by the Nice Treaty ‘the responsibilities incumbent upon the Commission shall be structured and allocated among its Members by its President’. Thus it is for the person who is appointed President of the next Commission to decide how responsibilities in the economic and social fields will be allocated and whether, more particularly, wide-ranging coordination responsibilities in the social field should be allocated to a Member of that Commission.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/696

---

(2004/C 84 E/0782)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Breastfeeding in public places

Is the Commission aware that many women in a number of Member States experience difficulty when they attempt to breastfeed in a public place?

Does the Commission consider that this is discriminatory against both mother and baby and that efforts should be made to change attitudes to what is a perfectly normal and acceptable practice?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Community legislation in the area of equal treatment between women and men covers issues relevant to the field of employment and occupation at this stage. The issue of breastfeeding in public places is not, therefore, an issue of discrimination within the meaning of existing Community legislation.

As the Honourable Member has said, this is a matter of attitudes to what is considered normal and acceptable practice in a society. The Community Framework Strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) (1) is supported by an action programme which aims at raising awareness on gender issues in EU policies, developing statistics and indicators and transnational networking of actors to promote gender equality. Among the objectives of the strategy is ‘promoting gender equality in civil life’ and ‘promoting change of gender roles and stereotypes’ which is about changing behaviour, attitudes, norms and values. This theme is a priority theme within the gender equality programme for 2004 and 2005.

---

(1)  OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/696

---

(2004/C 84 E/0783)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0928/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Equality of treatment in the written test for competition COM/A/3/02, sector 2

With regard to written test (d) for the competition COM/A/3/02 (Sustainable developoment: Environmental, energy and transport sciences and technologies) can the Commission say:

| — | how many candidates chose each of the five topics and what proportion of each group were admitted to the oral test; |
| --- | --- |

—

how many candidates chose each of the five topics and what proportion of each group were admitted to the oral test;

| — | whether, and by means of what procedures, equality of treatment was ensured, i.e. whether the candidates choosing each different topic had an equal chance of reaching the oral stage? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, and by means of what procedures, equality of treatment was ensured, i.e. whether the candidates choosing each different topic had an equal chance of reaching the oral stage?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The Competition referred to by the Honourable Member is still ongoing. The workings of the selection board are governed by the principle of confidentiality. The Commission is therefore not in a position to supply the data requested at present.

The Commission will, however, readily provide the Honourable Member with further information when the competition has been completed.

The general principle of equal treatment of candidates is ensured through application of criteria laid down in the published notice of competition COM/A/3/02 (1). There is no specific procedure to ensure an equal chance of reaching the oral stage between the candidates choosing each different topic. The Selection Board in field 2 (sustainable development) decided to offer five options in the written test, and candidates were freely able to choose one out of the five. Regardless of the option chosen, the candidates with the 195 highest scores were admitted to the oral test within the terms of the notice of competition.

---

(1)  OJ C 177, 25.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/697 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/697

---

(2004/C 84 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0934/04

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Breakdown of EU staff by grades A, B, C and D

In 2003, funds were allocated from the EU budget for a total of 31 000 permanent posts and 1 966 temporary posts in the EU's institutions.

Broken down by institution, the figures are as follows:

| | Permanent posts | Temporary posts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Commission | 21 849 | 685 |
| Parliament | 4 170 | 790 |
| Council | 2866 | 53 |
| Court of Justice | 862 | 278 |
| Court of Auditors | 509 | 279 |
| Economic and Social Committee | 501 | 24 |
| Committee of the Regions | 230 | 22 |
| Ombudsman | 13 | 18 |

Permanent posts

Temporary posts

Commission

21 849

685

Parliament

4 170

790

Council

2866

53

Court of Justice

862

278

Court of Auditors

509

279

Economic and Social Committee

501

24

Committee of the Regions

230

22

Ombudsman

13

18

Will the Commission provide a breakdown of the total number of staff in each grade (A, B, C and D) by nationality within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

As at 31 December 2003, the total number of permanent and temporary staff employed by the Commission was 21 166. The breakdown of officials per category as defined in the Staff Regulations, and by nationality of origin was as follows:

| Country | A | LA | Β | c | D | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | 946 | 178 | 1 322 | 2 315 | 256 | 5 017 |
| Denmark | 203 | 117 | 87 | 136 | 8 | 551 |
| Germany | 1 006 | 195 | 337 | 442 | 10 | 1 990 |
| Greece | 439 | 125 | 136 | 214 | 30 | 944 |
| Spain | 817 | 171 | 389 | 365 | 46 | 1 788 |
| France | 1 225 | 110 | 469 | 627 | 55 | 2 486 |
| Ireland | 226 | 20 | 117 | 197 | 7 | 567 |
| Italy | 1 005 | 167 | 567 | 827 | 208 | 2 774 |
| Luxembourg | 44 | 8 | 69 | 172 | 36 | 329 |
| Netherlands | 362 | 64 | 184 | 137 | 8 | 755 |
| Austria | 219 | 15 | 97 | 89 | 10 | 430 |
| Portugal | 289 | 125 | 128 | 201 | 28 | 771 |
| Finland | 215 | 112 | 144 | 120 | 7 | 598 |
| Sweden | 261 | 96 | 116 | 120 | 5 | 598 |
| United Kingdom | 773 | 173 | 248 | 288 | 9 | 1491 |
| Others | 15 | 48 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 77 |
| Total | 8 045 | 1 724 | 4 414 | 6 259 | 724 | 21 166 |

Country

A

LA

Β

c

D

Total

Belgium

946

178

1 322

2 315

256

5 017

Denmark

203

117

87

136

8

551

Germany

1 006

195

337

442

10

1 990

Greece

439

125

136

214

30

944

Spain

817

171

389

365

46

1 788

France

1 225

110

469

627

55

2 486

Ireland

226

20

117

197

7

567

Italy

1 005

167

567

827

208

2 774

Luxembourg

44

8

69

172

36

329

Netherlands

362

64

184

137

8

755

Austria

219

15

97

89

10

430

Portugal

289

125

128

201

28

771

Finland

215

112

144

120

7

598

Sweden

261

96

116

120

5

598

United Kingdom

773

173

248

288

9

1491

Others

15

48

4

9

1

77

Total

8 045

1 724

4 414

6 259

724

21 166

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/698 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/698

---

(2004/C 84 E/0785)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0949/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Difficulties for the Italian steel industry

A increasing number of Italian operators in the steel industry have complained of an adverse trend in production. This alarming situation has many causes: firstly raw materials (hematite cast iron, nodular cast iron, iron and steel scrap, coke, etc.) are increasingly expensive, in particular following the restrictions on exports introduced by the Chinese Government and the massive consumption of these materials by China and other Asian countries (one third of the world's steel production is absorbed by China). Many employees also complain of problems caused by the fact that Italian legislation classifies scrap metal as waste. These and other factors have led to exponential increases in the cost of raw materials for foundries over the last twelve months, as much as between 45 and 70 % for scrap metal and 60 and 100 % for ferroalloys (molybdenum, nickel and vanadium). The situation seems unsustainable and may result in serious crises in manufacturing and employment even in the short term.

Can the Commission say what urgent measures will be taken to tackle these problems and whether it does not intend to try to persuade the Beijing government to agree to trade arrangements that are less unfavourable for Community firms in the sector?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments on the world market for raw materials, particularly the impact of increasing demand from Asia on the market and on the prices of these products in EU countries. The steel industry is one of the industrial sectors most affected at the moment because of the simultaneous increase in the prices of all the raw materials it needs, in particular scrap, coke and ferroalloys.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that some of the difficulties the Italian steel industry is currently facing could be linked to the spectacular industrial development in China and its increasing demand for raw materials, which has led to tensions on the market and a sharp increase in world prices.

For this reason the Commission has contacted the Chinese authorities in order to examine possible solutions to problems directly linked to trade measures adopted by the Chinese Government, in particular export licences for coke. China is the main world exporter of this raw material, but because of increasing demand from the domestic market it has recently tried to limit its exports by adopting restrictive trade measures. The Commission has approached the Chinese authorities concerning the compatibility of such measures with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

The problem of scrap is different. The EU is a major producer and exporter of scrap and is not experiencing any difficulties with supply. However, in the present situation of rapidly increasing world prices, speculative behaviour may appear at all levels of the collection and distribution chain of this raw material and is likely to magnify any minor market imbalances. Italy has a structural deficit in scrap, so as the market situation changes it suffers more immediatley and directly than most of its EU partners.

The classification of scrap as waste derives from Community legislation aimed at regulating recycling in accordance with environmental principles. It is the responsibility of the national and local authorities to implement this legislation in accordance with the provisions in the framework Directive on waste management (1).

The Commission would assure the Honourable Member of its continuing commitment to closely monitor developments on the raw materials market, using all the means available to it to make sure that world trade in these products develops in accordance with the rules on open and fair competition.

---

(1)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/699 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/699

---

(2004/C 84 E/0786)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0957/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   The stated intention of deactivating Sorefame-Bombardier

Following my question of 28 November 2003 (E-3672/03 (1)), my worst expectations appear to have been fulfilled, with the announcement from Bombardier that it intends to shut down completely or drastically reduce some of its plants in Europe, and specifically Sorefame-Bombardier, in Amadora, Portugal.

As I stated before, this is a high-quality, high-capacity and high-tech company manufacturing and assembling rolling stock, and currently employs some 550 workers, and provides employment for a further thousand workers in subcontracted companies.

The situation is all the stranger, given that in Portugal, there are some projects which, if they were implemented, could resolve the problem, namely the Lisbon and Porto metro strategic expansion plans, and the Porto suburban trains, amongst other large-scale projects, some of them supported with Community funding.

Given what has happened in other EU Member States:

| 1. | What measures does the Commission intend to take, in terms of support mechanisms for companies, public investment, public competitions, ‘inter alia’, to guarantee Sorefame-Bombardier employment and high-quality production, and thus help to prevent the worsening of the economic recession in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures does the Commission intend to take, in terms of support mechanisms for companies, public investment, public competitions, ‘inter alia’, to guarantee Sorefame-Bombardier employment and high-quality production, and thus help to prevent the worsening of the economic recession in Portugal?

| 2. | Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to stimulate Portuguese contracts with Sorefame-Bombardier, to prevent the stopping of assembly lines in the near future, and consequent impact on jobs, given that Portugal currently suffers from the highest unemployment growth figures in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to stimulate Portuguese contracts with Sorefame-Bombardier, to prevent the stopping of assembly lines in the near future, and consequent impact on jobs, given that Portugal currently suffers from the highest unemployment growth figures in the EU?

| 3. | Does the Commission not believe that what is happening with Sorefame-Bombardier in Portugal, amongst many other examples, makes it clear that there has to be public intervention in companies of fundamental strategic importance, i.e. multinationals, in order to guarantee employment, production and development? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not believe that what is happening with Sorefame-Bombardier in Portugal, amongst many other examples, makes it clear that there has to be public intervention in companies of fundamental strategic importance, i.e. multinationals, in order to guarantee employment, production and development?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

On the social impact of Bombardier's planned closing of European plants, we can add nothing to what we have already told the Honourable Member in our reply to question E-3672/03 (2).

Suitable measures to help revive strategic industrial sectors such as the one to which the Honourable Member refers are a responsibility of the Portuguese authorities, which have reached agreement with us on introduction of mechanisms for supporting enterprises in that sector and on public investment (under the Economy and Transport Operational Programmes we have approved (3)). All action of this type must be in line with Community rules and policies, e.g. on public contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(3)  C(2000)1774, 28.7.2000; C(2000)2382, 28.7.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/700 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/700

---

(2004/C 84 E/0787)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0966/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   Chimney sweep monopoly

The regional monopoly of chimney sweeps that pertains in Germany is in breach of the EU rules on freedom of establishment (Article 43) and freedom to provide services (Article 49) in the EC Treaty. The author welcomes the fact that the Commission has launched infringement proceedings.

| 1. | Can the Commission give an estimate of when the infringement proceedings will end, given that it may even be necessary to bring a complaint before the Court of Justice of the European Communities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission give an estimate of when the infringement proceedings will end, given that it may even be necessary to bring a complaint before the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

| 2. | Can affected parties in the Federal Republic invoke existing EU law and already now contract out directly to service providers from other EU countries provided that they give guarantees that the emission and fire protection laws in force in the Federal Republic are complied with? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can affected parties in the Federal Republic invoke existing EU law and already now contract out directly to service providers from other EU countries provided that they give guarantees that the emission and fire protection laws in force in the Federal Republic are complied with?

| 3. | Since this is of particular relevance to border areas such as the Saarland, will the Commission say whether it is possible, for the abovementioned competition reasons and also for reasons of consumer protection, to contract out to service providers such as those from the neighbouring country of France, provided that German fire protection and emission laws are complied with, particularly where the Member State in question refuses to transpose current EU legislation, so that the people in question are not disadvantaged as a result of failure to transpose legislation in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since this is of particular relevance to border areas such as the Saarland, will the Commission say whether it is possible, for the abovementioned competition reasons and also for reasons of consumer protection, to contract out to service providers such as those from the neighbouring country of France, provided that German fire protection and emission laws are complied with, particularly where the Member State in question refuses to transpose current EU legislation, so that the people in question are not disadvantaged as a result of failure to transpose legislation in a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission cannot currently estimate how long the infringement proceedings against Germany concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps will last. According to the latest available information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004.
  The Commission will examine the Federal Government's proposals to amend the legislation on chimney sweeps in order to ascertain whether due account has been taken of the Commission's concerns. If this analysis fails to produce satisfactory results, the Commission will consider further action under the infringement procedure. This could involve the adoption of a reasoned opinion followed by a referral to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission cannot currently estimate how long the infringement proceedings against Germany concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps will last. According to the latest available information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004.

The Commission will examine the Federal Government's proposals to amend the legislation on chimney sweeps in order to ascertain whether due account has been taken of the Commission's concerns. If this analysis fails to produce satisfactory results, the Commission will consider further action under the infringement procedure. This could involve the adoption of a reasoned opinion followed by a referral to the Court of Justice.

| 2. and 3. | As long as the provisions concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps exist, the affected parties in Germany are obliged to engage local chimney sweeps to sweep and check their chimneys, and face the threat of penalties if they infringe these rules. The affected parties in Germany do of course have the right to point out the possible incompatibility of certain provisions with Community law during administrative procedures or subsequent legal procedures. The primacy of Community law requires that national law which infringes Community law is examined by the national authorities and courts and, if appropriate, is not applied (1). Lower courts can also refer questions on the interpretation of the Treaties to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In cases where Member State courts have the final say, they are obliged to bring the matter of the compatibility of national law with EU law before the Court of Justice (Article 234(3) of the EC Treaty).
  Under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, the European Court of Justice alone takes the final decision on whether legal provisions are compatible with EU law. The Commission can reach such a decision in its role as guardian of the Treaties, but cannot itself make this legally binding. The Court of Justice can establish that a national law infringes European law and call on the Member State concerned to amend the law to comply with EU law (Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty). If the Member State fails to do so, the Court of Justice may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it (Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty). |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

As long as the provisions concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps exist, the affected parties in Germany are obliged to engage local chimney sweeps to sweep and check their chimneys, and face the threat of penalties if they infringe these rules. The affected parties in Germany do of course have the right to point out the possible incompatibility of certain provisions with Community law during administrative procedures or subsequent legal procedures. The primacy of Community law requires that national law which infringes Community law is examined by the national authorities and courts and, if appropriate, is not applied (1). Lower courts can also refer questions on the interpretation of the Treaties to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In cases where Member State courts have the final say, they are obliged to bring the matter of the compatibility of national law with EU law before the Court of Justice (Article 234(3) of the EC Treaty).

Under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, the European Court of Justice alone takes the final decision on whether legal provisions are compatible with EU law. The Commission can reach such a decision in its role as guardian of the Treaties, but cannot itself make this legally binding. The Court of Justice can establish that a national law infringes European law and call on the Member State concerned to amend the law to comply with EU law (Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty). If the Member State fails to do so, the Court of Justice may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it (Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty).

---

(1)  ECJ, Case 103/88, ECR 1989, 1839/1871, Point 31.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/702 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/702

---

(2004/C 84 E/0788)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0974/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   EU-Switzerland agreements and implementation of Rönfeldt-Thévenon case law

Following the entry into force of the EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons and given that from 1 June 2002 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) replaces the bilateral social security agreements concluded between the Member States and Switzerland and, in particular, the Italo-Swiss general convention of 14 December 1962, as subsequently amended, Italian workers employed in Switzerland are no longer entitled to transfer contributions from the Swiss insurance scheme to the Italian scheme with a view to the granting of a single pension under the Italian scheme. The Commission is already aware of this situation, to which attention has been drawn on several occasions by the unions, including Inca-Ggil.

Under the Rönfeldt-Thévenon case law, workers are entitled to retain the advantages provided for in earlier bilateral agreements where:

| (a) | the provisions of those agreements gave rise to advantages greater (i.e. more favourable) than those provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the provisions of those agreements gave rise to advantages greater (i.e. more favourable) than those provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; and

| (b) | the worker was covered by the legislation in question prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and can prove that his personal rights have been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the worker was covered by the legislation in question prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and can prove that his personal rights have been infringed.

Given the above, would the Commission state: Whether the Rönfeldt-Thévenon case law, the principles of which have been endorsed by a large number of subsequent judgments of the Court of Justice, ‘inter alia’ on relations with third countries affected by the EEA Agreement, might not be applied in this instance, given the terms and substance (as evidenced by the preamble, the objectives set out in Article 1 and the provisions of Annex I) of the EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons and the fact that the arrangements for transferring contributions that are laid down in the Italo-Swiss bilateral agreement previously in force may be deemed systems for the coordination of social security schemes?

Whether, should this be the case, given the amount of time that has elapsed since the agreement entered into force and in view of the provisions of Article 16 thereof (reference to Community law), it would agree that it should take steps to ensure that this case law is duly considered and implemented by the relevant authorities and institutions?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission considers that, within the framework of the agreement on free movement of persons between the European Community and its Member States on the one hand and the Swiss Confederation on the other, the application of the Rönfeldt principle to the provisions of bilateral conventions such as the Italo-Swiss convention on the transfer of contributions would not be justified as a means of protecting acquired rights, for the following reasons:

| — | The fundamental judgment in Rönfeldt (2) is to be seen in the specific context of the free movement within the Community of workers who are Member State nationals. Thus, the purpose of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) — to facilitate the free movement of workers between Member States provided for in Articles 39 and 43 — led the Court in its judgment to ‘moderate’ the automatic effect of the replacement of bilateral social security conventions by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. It was because of this objective specific to the Community that the Court of Justice had to determine whether the replacement of social security conventions between Member States led to workers being placed in a less favourable situation, as regards their rights, than that resulting from the previous arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental judgment in Rönfeldt (2) is to be seen in the specific context of the free movement within the Community of workers who are Member State nationals. Thus, the purpose of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) — to facilitate the free movement of workers between Member States provided for in Articles 39 and 43 — led the Court in its judgment to ‘moderate’ the automatic effect of the replacement of bilateral social security conventions by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. It was because of this objective specific to the Community that the Court of Justice had to determine whether the replacement of social security conventions between Member States led to workers being placed in a less favourable situation, as regards their rights, than that resulting from the previous arrangements.

| — | In the context of the EC-Switzerland agreement, especially as regards the application of Article 16 of this agreement when determining the implications of the judgment, it should be noted that the legal framework for assessing any unfavourable consequences for workers resulting from the replacement of certain provisions of bilateral conventions between a Member State and a third country by the EC-Switzerland agreement differs substantially from that underlying the judgment in Rönfeldt; even though the EC-Switzerland agreement is concerned with the free movement of workers, this concept does not have the same basis (in particular, the unconditional character that the Treaty confers on the exercise of this basic freedom). |
| --- | --- |

—

In the context of the EC-Switzerland agreement, especially as regards the application of Article 16 of this agreement when determining the implications of the judgment, it should be noted that the legal framework for assessing any unfavourable consequences for workers resulting from the replacement of certain provisions of bilateral conventions between a Member State and a third country by the EC-Switzerland agreement differs substantially from that underlying the judgment in Rönfeldt; even though the EC-Switzerland agreement is concerned with the free movement of workers, this concept does not have the same basis (in particular, the unconditional character that the Treaty confers on the exercise of this basic freedom).

| — | Similarly, a referral to the ‘acquis communautaire’ (i.e. Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71) does not mean that the Court's interpretation of certain provisions of the Regulation in terms of the free movement of workers within the Community can automatically be applied to a situation involving Member State nationals and nationals of a third country within the framework of an international agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

Similarly, a referral to the ‘acquis communautaire’ (i.e. Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71) does not mean that the Court's interpretation of certain provisions of the Regulation in terms of the free movement of workers within the Community can automatically be applied to a situation involving Member State nationals and nationals of a third country within the framework of an international agreement.

| — | Moreover, as regards the transfer of contributions provided for in the Italo-Swiss agreement, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 lays down a different principle: that of aggregation/pro rata calculation; Thus, the essential difference between the two methods has nothing to do with their aim, which is to assist workers, but concerns the sharing of the costs of financing benefits between the various countries where the employed person engaged in an activity that entitled him or her to receive benefits. Accordingly, the Commission considers that, after the EC-Switzerland agreement came into force, replacing the transfer of contributions by the aggregation/pro rata arrangements provided for in the Regulation cannot be seen as placing the worker in a less favourable situation than that obtaining previously under the bilateral convention between his or her country of origin and Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, as regards the transfer of contributions provided for in the Italo-Swiss agreement, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 lays down a different principle: that of aggregation/pro rata calculation; Thus, the essential difference between the two methods has nothing to do with their aim, which is to assist workers, but concerns the sharing of the costs of financing benefits between the various countries where the employed person engaged in an activity that entitled him or her to receive benefits. Accordingly, the Commission considers that, after the EC-Switzerland agreement came into force, replacing the transfer of contributions by the aggregation/pro rata arrangements provided for in the Regulation cannot be seen as placing the worker in a less favourable situation than that obtaining previously under the bilateral convention between his or her country of origin and Switzerland.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  Case C-227/89, judgment of 7 February 1991, ECR I-323.

(3)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/703 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/703

---

(2004/C 84 E/0789)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1040/04

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation

Further to my parliamentary question of 27 October 2003 and the Commission's answer (P-3312/03 (1)), it is important to point out that the question concerns a matter falling within the sphere of competence not only of DG SANCO but also of DG MARKT, in addition to the fact that the Commission has merely replied that it was not aware of the problem and has not expressed its views on the substance of the matter.

Will the Commission, represented by Commissioner Byrne and Commissioner Bolkestein, indicate what steps have been taken to check whether the Community legislation relating to the sector has been properly and adequately transposed?

Has the Commission checked whether the existence of the assessment committee which I referred to is admissible?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that it followed up the information he provided in Written Question P-3312/03 of 27 October 2003.

As indicated in its answer, the Commission had no knowledge of the existence in Italy of a morphological test for entering stallions in the studbook and a committee to carry out the assessment.

However, following the written question, the Commission decided to open an own-initiative investigation, registered as No 2004/2069, in order to clarify the facts and draw the appropriate conclusions.

The investigation is being carried out by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, which is the service responsible for Directive 90/427/EC (2) on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae.

A letter was sent to the Italian authorities on 31 March 2004 asking for confirmation of the existence of this test and requesting a copy of the relevant national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 254.

(2)  Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/704

---

(2004/C 84 E/0790)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2004)

Subject:   River access

Is the Commission aware of the diversity across the EU in terms of rights of passage along national rivers? Some countries appear to have almost completely free access for the public, and others, including England and Wales, are highly restricted.

Is the Commisison aware of studies or indeed has it conducted studies into this matter? Does it have any plans to suggest a more unified approach to river access?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 4)

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/705 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/705

---

(2004/C 84 E/0791)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3150/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject:   Application of the Stability Pact

Commissioner Solbes Mira recently confirmed what had been common knowledge for some time, namely that the aims of the stability programmes would not be achieved in 2002. This is the case in Germany France and Italy and it is quite clear that Germany's public deficit will be above the 3 % threshold in 2002 (as admitted by the German Minister of Finance). The truth is now out. The Commission proposal, while reasserting the basic principles, highlights the predominantly political nature of the Stability Pact's aims and its limitations, especially in times of economic recession or slowdown. The Pact has served as a pretext for a policy of privatisation in areas which undermine public services and fundamental rights, such as public health, education, public investment and the proper and fait implementation of the Structural Funds. It is absurd to try to apply a single budgetary policy, which fails to take into account development level disparities within the euro zone despite the fact that these require a differentiated response in each Member State.

It is, to say the least, comical that, at a time when a proceedings are being instituted against Portugal owing to its excessive deficit, and a direct recommendation is being made for anti-social and deflationary policies to be applied, Commissioner Pascal Lamy should state in an interview with the Italian newspaper ‘Il sole 24 Ore’ that the 3 % rule is, in his view, ‘medieval’ and that ‘the Pact is an unrefined instrument of economic governance’. The President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, has, for his part, in an interview with ‘Le Monde’, acknowledged the Pact's deficiencies and the need to make it more flexible, describing it as a ‘stupid’ and ‘rigid’ instrument. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has stated that the only restriction is the 3 % figure and that he would therefore not attempt to achieve the objectives of the stability programmes but would instead endeavour to keep his electoral promises by lowering taxes and increasing state subsidies. Even Chancellor Schroeder, who had asked for the Pact to be established as a condition for accepting EMU, has suggested that there is no need for a dogmatic approach to the rules that have been laid down.

In this context, will the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | what is the purpose of maintaining the Stability Pact at present? Why does the Commission not decide instead to suspend the Pact immediately and to open a wide-ranging debate on the current broad lines of economic and monetary policy, with a view to promoting the growth of a labour market that shows due respect for workers and the fight against poverty and social exclusion? |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the purpose of maintaining the Stability Pact at present? Why does the Commission not decide instead to suspend the Pact immediately and to open a wide-ranging debate on the current broad lines of economic and monetary policy, with a view to promoting the growth of a labour market that shows due respect for workers and the fight against poverty and social exclusion?

| — | does it not consider that, in view of all the public statements made by leading members of the Commission, it should immediately suspend the procedings instituted against Portugal owing to its excessive deficit? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not consider that, in view of all the public statements made by leading members of the Commission, it should immediately suspend the procedings instituted against Portugal owing to its excessive deficit?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

The main purpose of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) is to ensure sound budgetary policies thus avoiding excessive deficits. Achieving the SGP target of ‘close to balance or in surplus’ will ensure that budget positions remain on a sustainable path while the automatic stabilisers are allowed to play freely over the cycle helping to support growth in bad times without breaching 3 %. Sound public finances also provide the budgetary room necessary for structural reform in support of growth and employment. The SGP has worked successfully in that it has contributed to ensure a growth-friendly policy mix.

However, it must also be acknowledged that looking at individual Member States, some are now close to, or have even surpassed, the 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP) deficit reference value and have not yet achieved the ‘close to balance or in surplus’ goal of the SGP. The Council has addressed a recommendation to Portugal under the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) and the Commission has launched the EDP for Germany. The Commission has also recommended to the Council to issue an early warning to France. This indicates that the rule based fiscal policy framework (EDP + SGP) operates as intended.

Achieving and maintaining a close to balance budgetary position creates the necessary room for the automatic stabilisers to play fully, it also provides room to cope with the possible budgetary impact of reforms aiming at enhancing growth and employment.

Overall, it is the opinion of the Commission that the design of the budgetary rule based framework is appropriate but that efforts can be made to improve its implementation. The Commission will come forward with a Communication before the end of 2002 on this issue.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/706 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/706

---

(2004/C 84 E/0792)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject:   Spanish National Hydrological Plan: Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion

The decision to divert water from the Júcar basin to the Vinalopó basin in the Alicantí-Marína Baja area (Alicante) was adopted on 29 August 1998 and now forms part of Annex 2 to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan. Under this project, 80 hm3 of water would be diverted each year, with 55 hm3 being used for crop irrigation to achieve the official objective of aquifer regeneration. The water would be diverted between different basins within the same administrative area.

According to local environmental experts, the project proposal overestimates the actual volume of water that the Júcar can provide, which is a sign either of ignorance of the river's hydrology or of incorrect data. It fails to take into account the hydrological records for 1994-1995, which showed a diversion to be impossible, especially if the flow rate decreases in line with climate change forecasts.

The experts consider the environmental impact study on the diversion to be inaccurate and incomplete. The study does not cover the economic impact on irrigated areas or on the fertile Júcar plain. Neither does it mention the Roman and Bronze Age remains that will be put in jeopardy. Only part of this study was made public, in contravention of Directive 90/313/EEC (1) on freedom of access to information on the environment.

If the Commission is considering a request for cofinancing for this project, could it indicate whether it has received a report from the Spanish Government on the way that the project will affect the Natura 2000 network? Is the Commission aware that the project affects at least six sites of Community importance in the Autonomous Community of Valencia? Does the Commission consider these effects to be compatible with possible European financing of this project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The decision to divert water from the Júcar basin to the Vinalopó basin in the Autonomous Community of Valencia in Spain has been the subject of several written questions from the Honourable Member.

In its answers to these written questions, the Commission has had the opportunity to inform the Honourable Member of the steps which it has taken as part of an investigation of a complaint received about this project and its possible impact on the environment.

The Honourable Member should refer to the answer which the Commission gave to her written questions E-1549/02 and E-1550/02 (2) on this subject. In any case, it should be noted that the investigation is still open in order to examine the latest information provided by the complainants and to check that the applicable Community environment legislation is being respected in this individual case.

With regard to the possible Community funding of this project, the Honourable Member should refer to the recent answer to her oral question H-0678/02 during question time at Parliament's October 2002 (3) part-session which was also on this subject.

---

(1)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(2)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 176.

(3)  Written answer of 22.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/707

---

(2004/C 84 E/0793)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3821/02

by Elena Padotti (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Violation of asylum rights in the EU

On 28 November 2002 the Italian authorities repatriated Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family, from Malpensa airport (Milan) to Syria, despite the existence of a death sentence against him in that country. This act was in breach of the Italian Constitution.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘no-one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed’ (Article 2), and also underwrites the right of asylum on the basis of the Geneva Convention and the protocol of 31 January 1967 (Article 18). Meanwhile, negotiations are currently in course between the EU and Syria for an association agreement.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to intervene as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the death sentence is not carried out and that the physical integrity of Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family is not put at risk?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/707

---

(2004/C 84 E/0794)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Expulsion from Italy of the Al-Shari family

The Italian police have now handed over to the Syrian police the engineer Muhammad Al-Shari (who was sentenced to death some years ago in Syria on the grounds of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), together with his wife and four children, after holding them in detention for five days at Malpensa airport (Milan), during which time they were not allowed contact with third persons, in circumstances amounting to a deliberate breach of the international conventions on asylum and the much-lauded Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Al-Shari family had arrived from Iraq, and at the very least they should have been ‘sent back’ to that country. Instead, they were handed back to the Syrian dictatorship.

The author of this question hereby declares his intention to take this case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and meanwhile asks the Commission to ascertain whether the death sentence decreed against Muhammad Al-Shari in Syria has been carried out or not, to state what action it will take with a view to safeguarding the physical integrity of the Al-Shari family, and to call on the Italian government to abide by its international commitments.

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3821/02 and P-3826/02

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Regarding the possible violation of asylum rights in a Member State the situation is the following: although it is the duty of the Commission to ensure observance of fundamental rights in the field of Community law, it has no power to examine the compatibility of national legislation and practice lying outside the scope of Community law with the European Convention of Human Rights.

This is established by the case law of the Court of Justice (Demirel, Wachauf and ERT) and Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In the field of asylum, there are no Community provisions in place based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty related to the situation described in the two questions. In particular, the two proposals for a directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures and for a directive on the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection are still under negotiation in the Council. Therefore, the Commission has no power to intervene on that basis with the Italian authorities.

According to Syrian authorities, Mr Al-Sakhri is in detention and under investigation in relation to the events in Hama in the early 1980's, his family is not in detention. Requests have also been made to the Syrian authorities to treat Mr Al-Sakrhi according to international standards.

The Commission is in contact with the Union Presidency and Member State missions in Damascus regarding continued monitoring and follow-up of this issue.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/708 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/708

---

(2004/C 84 E/0795)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3867/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Salvage of the ferry ‘Le Joola’

| 1. | Has President Wade of Senegal already submitted a request to the Commission for financial, technical and logistical help with the salvage of the ferry ‘Le Joola’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has President Wade of Senegal already submitted a request to the Commission for financial, technical and logistical help with the salvage of the ferry ‘Le Joola’?

| 2. | Does the Commission deem it morally acceptable that the ferry is still lying on a sandbank while the possibility and the means exist to recover at least 1 500 bodies and while all the victims' relatives are calling for such action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission deem it morally acceptable that the ferry is still lying on a sandbank while the possibility and the means exist to recover at least 1 500 bodies and while all the victims' relatives are calling for such action?

| 3. | Can the Commission indicate whether Senegal has a Burial and Cremations Act, similar to that which exists in the Member States of the European Union, which would oblige President Wade to have the bodies recovered if the victims' relatives so requested? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission indicate whether Senegal has a Burial and Cremations Act, similar to that which exists in the Member States of the European Union, which would oblige President Wade to have the bodies recovered if the victims' relatives so requested?

| 4. | Is the Commission, acting in conjunction with those European countries from which some of the victims came (France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands), prepared to approach President Wade about this issue? Has the Commission taken account of the fact that no country can deal with the consequences of such a catastrophe on its own? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission, acting in conjunction with those European countries from which some of the victims came (France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands), prepared to approach President Wade about this issue? Has the Commission taken account of the fact that no country can deal with the consequences of such a catastrophe on its own?

| 5. | Is the Commission prepared to do its utmost to seek a political solution with President Wade and have the bodies of the victims recovered in order to attenuate as far as possible the problems caused for the victims' relatives? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission prepared to do its utmost to seek a political solution with President Wade and have the bodies of the victims recovered in order to attenuate as far as possible the problems caused for the victims' relatives?

| 6. | Is it possible to authorise the EU delegation to take direct action? Is the Commission prepared in this instance to turn a blind eye to formal requirements, since ‘life-threatening circumstances’ are not at issue here, and to address the problem above all from a humanitarian point of view? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it possible to authorise the EU delegation to take direct action? Is the Commission prepared in this instance to turn a blind eye to formal requirements, since ‘life-threatening circumstances’ are not at issue here, and to address the problem above all from a humanitarian point of view?

| 7. | Is the Commission prepared to give its total support to the interests of the victims' relatives vis-à-vis the Senegalese Government which has been claiming for the last two and a half months that salvage of the wreck is a priority but has done nothing except make promises? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is the Commission prepared to give its total support to the interests of the victims' relatives vis-à-vis the Senegalese Government which has been claiming for the last two and a half months that salvage of the wreck is a priority but has done nothing except make promises?

| 8. | Can the Commission indicate what the EU discussed, at the request of the relatives of European victims, with the Senegalese authorities and the African Union with regard to the possible salvage of the ‘Le Joola’ at the EU-Africa Summit which was held from 27 to 30 November 2002? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Can the Commission indicate what the EU discussed, at the request of the relatives of European victims, with the Senegalese authorities and the African Union with regard to the possible salvage of the ‘Le Joola’ at the EU-Africa Summit which was held from 27 to 30 November 2002?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

| 1. | The President of Senegal has not submitted a request to the Commission concerning the salvage of the ‘Le Joola’ ferry. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The President of Senegal has not submitted a request to the Commission concerning the salvage of the ‘Le Joola’ ferry.

| 2. | The Commission has already expressed its condolences to the victims' families. The technical aspects of the salvage are difficult to assess. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has already expressed its condolences to the victims' families. The technical aspects of the salvage are difficult to assess.

| 3. | The Commission can confirm that Senegal's family code contains provisions relating to burial and to death certificates for missing persons. The Commission cannot assess the legal obligations incumbent on the Senegal government in this case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission can confirm that Senegal's family code contains provisions relating to burial and to death certificates for missing persons. The Commission cannot assess the legal obligations incumbent on the Senegal government in this case.

| 4. | The Commission is not in a position to take the kind of initiative proposed by the Honourable Member. It is up to the Member States concerned to take political initiatives with the Senegal government in the manner proposed by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is not in a position to take the kind of initiative proposed by the Honourable Member. It is up to the Member States concerned to take political initiatives with the Senegal government in the manner proposed by the Honourable Member.

| 5. | The Commission is prepared within its legal means and obligations to support Member States in their contacts with the Senegal government. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission is prepared within its legal means and obligations to support Member States in their contacts with the Senegal government.

| 6. | The Commission delegation has not been inactive. Through its office in Banjul it provided immediate help, after the ferry sank, with the identification of bodies and, from Dakar, in investigating with the government and with Member States and other donors present in Senegal the alternatives for restoring the Dakar-Ziginchor maritime link in safer conditions. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission delegation has not been inactive. Through its office in Banjul it provided immediate help, after the ferry sank, with the identification of bodies and, from Dakar, in investigating with the government and with Member States and other donors present in Senegal the alternatives for restoring the Dakar-Ziginchor maritime link in safer conditions.

| 7. | The Commission considers that defending the interests of the families vis-à-vis the Senegal government is primarily a matter for civil society bodies in Senegal, which have already taken effective measures, and for the Member States concerned by the tragedy through their consulates. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Commission considers that defending the interests of the families vis-à-vis the Senegal government is primarily a matter for civil society bodies in Senegal, which have already taken effective measures, and for the Member States concerned by the tragedy through their consulates.

| 8. | The ministerial meeting of the EU-Africa Dialogue held in Ouagadougou on 28 November 2002 did not deal with that matter as it is a bilateral issue. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The ministerial meeting of the EU-Africa Dialogue held in Ouagadougou on 28 November 2002 did not deal with that matter as it is a bilateral issue.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/709 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/709

---

(2004/C 84 E/0796)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Netherlands Student Grants Act

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education. Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

| 1. | Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the principle of ‘free movement of services’ (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the ‘free movement of persons’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the principle of ‘free movement of services’ (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the ‘free movement of persons’?

| 2. | Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of Articles 149 and/or 150 of the EC Treaty in that the action of the Netherlands Government restricts student mobility? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of Articles 149 and/or 150 of the EC Treaty in that the action of the Netherlands Government restricts student mobility?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/710 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/710

---

(2004/C 84 E/0797)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/04

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Student grants and free movement of persons

From the age of 18, Netherlands students still attending an institution of pre-university or senior secondary vocational education in the Netherlands are no longer eligible for a child allowance and in its place receive a grant under the Student Grants Act. If such 18 year olds receive their education across the border, they get no funding. Is the Commission prepared, bearing in mind that this question is now being posed for the third time, to give a clear answer concerning the key issue. Does the Commission agree that this poses obstacles which impede the free movement of students?

Supplementary joint answer

to Written Questions E-3868/02 and E-0797/04

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Honourable Member raises the question of the territorial aspect of national grants and other financial aids awarded to students, an issue that was also the subject of written questions E-3868/02 and E-3584/03 (1).

Member States can provide in their legislation for financial assistance for students, in accordance with criteria that vary from one Member State to another. Under certain countries' legislation, a grant can be transferred if a student decides to study in another Member State, allowing students to continue to enjoy the financial assistance awarded by their country of origin while they study in another Member State. However, Dutch law does not allow this.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that limiting financial assistance to those students studying within the territory of the Member State concerned may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of students. Furthermore, the Commission Green Paper ‘Education, training, research: the obstacles to transnational mobility’ (2) mentions that the territorial nature of national grants may constitute a significant obstacle to mobility.

However, according to the information brought to the Commission's attention, the provisions in force in the Netherlands are not incompatible with the principles of free movement, and no breach of Community law has been identified. Students from the Netherlands have the right to go to other European countries to study, and exercise this right, and foreign students from other Member States are entitled to study in the Netherlands.

---

(1)  The answer to question 3584/03 also applies as a supplementary answer to question 3868/02.

(2)  COM(96) 462 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/711 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/711

---

(2004/C 84 E/0798)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject:   Support for Afghanistan

The ‘Afghanistan Support Group’ met in Oslo on 17 December 2002.

Who represented the European Union?

What topics were on the agenda?

What conclusions were reached?

Was a decision taken on any kind of support?

If so, what kind of support?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Afghanistan Support Group Meeting in Oslo 17 December 2002 was attended by the Union Special Representative to Afghanistan, Mr Francisco Vendrell. The Commission was represented by officials from the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and Directorate general for External Relations.

The meeting discussed the current and future needs of Afghanistan, the future co-ordination of international assistance to Afghanistan and the United Nations' (UN) Transitional Assistance Programme Appeal (TAPA) for 2003 was presented. Furthermore some key issues facing Afghanistan were discussed e.g. human rights, the role of women, the return of refugees, and opium poppy production. There was also discussion of some of the key issues facing Afghanistan including human rights, the role of women, the return of refugees, and opium poppy production.

The meeting was not a pledging meeting, but many donors highlighted the contributions they had made to Afghanistan in 2002 and expressed continued support for the future. The Commission noted that reconstruction and recovery aid for 2002 had been over EUR 205 million. Humanitarian support from ECHO had been over EUR 70 million.

Participants also welcomed the renewed commitment at the 2 December 2002 Petersberg meeting to the Bonn Agreement, and reiterated the importance of:

| — | improving internal security — in particular by pressing on with the establishment of the Afghan National Army; |
| --- | --- |

—

improving internal security — in particular by pressing on with the establishment of the Afghan National Army;

| — | respecting human rights for all; |
| --- | --- |

—

respecting human rights for all;

| — | preparing for the elections in 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

preparing for the elections in 2004;

| — | tackling opium poppy production; |
| --- | --- |

—

tackling opium poppy production;

| — | establishing benchmarks to underpin full implemenation of the Bonn Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

establishing benchmarks to underpin full implemenation of the Bonn Agreement.

The meeting concluded that the time had come for the Afghanistan Transitional Authority to take the lead in the reconstruction effort. This would therefore be the last meeting of the Afghanistan Support Group. It would be replaced by a series of Afghan Government led Consultative Groups with the first full meeting in March 2003. For Humanitarian support there will be a donor led Humanitarian Aid Advisory Group chaired in the first instance by Japan.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/712 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/712

---

(2004/C 84 E/0799)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   German capital gains tax

Could the Commission tell the European Parliament what steps it is taking to persuade the German Government not to adopt its proposed new capital gains tax discriminating against funds domiciled outside of Germany (by exposing them to higher taxation levels than funds domiciled within Germany)? Does the Commissioner agree that this measure is an illegal breach of single market principles, constituting an impediment to the free movement of capital? Has the Commission been in touch with the German Government to give its views on the proposed new tax?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

The Commission has opened an infringement procedure against Germany for an already existing discriminatory tax regime for foreign investment funds (infr 2000/5059). In the press release issued on that occasion (1) the Commission also expressed its concern about the draft German bill, which, if adopted, would extend the tax discrimination to capital gains.

---

(1)  IP/02/1924.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/712 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/712

---

(2004/C 84 E/0800)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0129/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Suspension of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programme in Phnom Penh

On 31 December the US State Department announced that the Cambodian Government had removed Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programmes from the Phnom Penh FM radio station Beehive, after just three months since their beginning.

Considering that it is crucial for every society on the path towards democratisation to have balanced and fact-based information, and considering that Voice of America and Radio Free Asia were improving the quality and the rate of freedom of information for Cambodian citizens;

Considering that the lack of objective information is one of the major concerns in Cambodia today, especially in view of the national elections, which will take place in 2003;

Considering that the European Commission has not yet deemed necessary to give any form of concrete follow-up to the EP decision which, in the framework of the 2002 budget, asked to fund a Voice of Europe radio network to reach the hundreds of millions of people who are still oppressed by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes;

Considering that an essential element of the Cambodia-EC Cooperation Agreement signed in 1997 is the undertaking by Cambodia and the European Community to respect and recognise democratic principles and human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and considering also that over the next three years (2002-2004), EUR 68,7 million has been earmarked for Cambodia to finance activities in sectors identified in the 2000-2003 EC-Cambodia Strategy Paper;

What will the Commission do to ensure the restoration of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programmes in Cambodia? What will the Commission do to ensure that the fundamental right of Cambodian citizens to balanced and free information will be respected, especially on the occasion of the next political elections?

What concrete steps will the Commission undertake to implement and enforce fully the so-called ‘human rights clause’ contained in all bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements signed with Cambodia as well as with other concerned countries in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The Voice of America and Radio Free Asia programmes can still be received in parts of Cambodia as they are broadcast from outside the country but the retransmission of these programmes through Radio Beehive ended in December 2002.

The Union has on several occasions raised its concerns regarding the right for balanced and free information on the occasion of the National Assembly elections in July 2003.

The European Election Observation Mission to the Cambodian Commune Council Elections in 2002 concluded that there was a lack of clear media guidelines and that electronic media offered coverage with a strong bias in favour of the Government and the Cambodian People's Party.

Following up on the recommendations made by the Election Observation Mission, the Commission is providing technical assistance as regards public relations and communication to the National Election Committee. The aim of this assistance is to increase the transparency of the electoral process and to improve information to voters. The Community, together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), is also providing technical assistance for the establishment of improved media guidelines and a code of conduct for journalists.

The Commission has an open and frank dialogue with Cambodian authorities on human rights issues, in the Joint Committee meetings established under the Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and Cambodia and in other bilateral contacts. This is also the case for other countries with bilateral co-operation agreements in Southeast Asia.

While issues of concern in the field of human rights remain in some of these countries, the Commission is of the opinion that the best way to improve the situation is through an open and constructive dialogue.

As regards Cambodia, additional Community funds to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in the field of human rights have also been made available through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).

While ‘Freedom of expression and independent media’ has been identified as a priority in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, the priorities retained for Cambodia were: Human rights education and training, with a particular emphasis on gender and the right of the child; Improved access to the legal system; Conflict prevention and resolution and Fight against impunity.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/713 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/713

---

(2004/C 84 E/0801)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject:   Women's rights in Iran

Despite major violations of women's rights — discrimination, stonings, torture, etc. —, on 12 December 2002 the European Union began negotiations with Iran on the conclusion of a trade and cooperation agreement. Given the importance Europe attaches to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, the EU plans to incorporate a human rights clause in this trade and cooperation agreement.

A European troika paid a visit to Iran on 16/17 December 2002 in connection with the launching of the human rights dialogue between the EU and Iran. According to a press release from the Danish Presidency, the dialogue took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. Is there a connection between the troika visit and the Iranian government's decision to issue an invitation to a UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women?

The European Parliament has always called for pressure to be exerted to ensure that women's rights are respected whenever agreements are concluded between the EU and third countries. A human rights clause is to be included in the agreement with Iran. To what extent will this clause also lay down stringent conditions in the area of women's rights? How will the EU be able to monitor and enforce compliance with this clause? Will the possibility of suspending the agreement if Iran should fail to respect women's rights, or human rights in general, also be built in?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

The negotiations with Iran on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) are linked to negotiations on political dialogue and counter-terrorism. This is in line with the political package defined by the General Affairs and External Relations Council in June and formally adopted on 12 July 2002. In accordance with the relevant praxis regarding Community Agreements the Council has decided that this TCA shall contain a standard Human Rights clause, which in case of grave violations would entail appropriate measures.

As the Honourable Member points out, a specific Union-Iran Human Rights dialogue was launched in Tehran 16/17 December 2002, based on the Council conclusions of 21 October 2002. This dialogue takes the form of a restricted session at governmental level, led by the Troïka on the Union side and addresses all Human Rights issues of concern. It is complemented by a round-table involving Union and Iranian civil society representatives. Two major themes were addressed during the round-table held in December 2002: discrimination (including discrimination against women) and prevention of torture. As regards discrimination against women, the Union made clear that it regarded Iran's accession to the relevant international convention (CEDAW), which Iran is currently studying, would be a very important step. The same approach was followed for the invitations by Iran of United Nations thematic rapporteurs, including the one on violence against women, scheduled to visit Iran in 2003.

The emerging Human Rights dialogue has been launched without pre-conditions, but it is to be regularly assessed through the use of benchmarks. The dialogue also feeds into the semi-annual EU-Iran Comprehensive Dialogue meetings which are ongoing since 1998.

The Commission has been informed — in connection with the Human Rights dialogue in December 2002 as well as during the visit of the Member of the Commission responsible for External relations to Iran 3/5 February 2003 — that a moratorium on stoning is in effect since late 2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/714 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/714

---

(2004/C 84 E/0802)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0199/03

by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Western Sahara — Visit of European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation — Human Rights

The European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation for the Western Sahara visited Laayoune, the capital of this non-self-governing territory, on 12 March 2002. A meeting with members of the civil society, including Saharawi human rights activists, was held in Laayoune Parador Hotel.

The meeting took place at the request of the European Delegation, which raised the question of the safety of the civil society members. The Delegation chair, Catherine Lalumiere MEP, promised to give every guarantee that the participants in the meeting would not undergo intimidation by the Moroccan authorities following this meeting. After their meeting with the MEPs, the president and a large number of members of the local human rights NGO ‘Forum for Truth and Justice: Sahara Section’ who participated in the meeting were prosecuted by the occupying Moroccan authorities. The Saharawi participants were the president of the NGO, Mr Moutik Lahoussine, Mr Eddymaoui Abdessalem, Mr Ennassiri Ahmed, Mr Elmoussaoui Edkhil and Mr Mohamed Elmoutaouikil.

Mr Moutik Lahoussine was fired from his job (in the company Sepomer Sahara SARI) due to his meeting with the European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation. The other members of the Saharawi delegation were detained on several occasions and prosecuted for political reasons.

Several members of the Sahara section of the Truth and Justice Forum and Saharawi human rights militants have currently been targeted by intimidation measures.

What is the European Commission doing against these violations of human rights?

As the Kingdom of Morocco is the occupying power in Western Sahara, what kind of action at diplomatic level is the European Commission taking in this respect to improve the situation of the above-mentioned persons who met the Ad Hoc Delegation?

What kind of measures can the European Commission provide concerning the next European Parliament missions to this non-self-governing territory?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The relations between Morocco and the Union are governed by the Association Agreement and the questions related to human rights as well as those connected with the Western Sahara are treated in the framework of the political dialogue (Article 2) during the Association Councils and Committees.

In the future months, the Union and Morocco are expected to engage in a even more constructive dialogue on the questions of democratic principles and human rights which will lead to the possibility of discussing alleged cases of ill-treatment, including the present one.

Regarding the next missions of the Parliament to the territory of the Western Sahara, which are organised by the services of the Parliament, the Commission remains at the Honourable Member's disposal for any information she might consider necessary.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/715 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/715

---

(2004/C 84 E/0803)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Kenya Westlands-St Austins road scheme

Will the Commission ensure that it complies with its duty under Article 288 (ex 215) to make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties in the light of suggestions made by local people at the instigation of Lutz Salzmann, former Head of the EU Delegation in Kenya, in 1996?

Will the Commission fund the borehole that has been requested by the local community in the light of the destruction of the water table and the contamination of the general water supply brought about by contractors working for the EU?

Will it also consider supporting the creation of a health clinic in the Rung iri/Gitaru area to counteract the respiratory damage which affects local people and was caused by the contractors during construction work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Please refer to decision by the European Ombudsman on complaint 983/29.10.96/ABU/KENYA/XD/BB against the Commission of 29 April 1999, in which the Ombudsman concluded that ‘on the basis of the European Ombudsman's enquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no mal-administration by the European Commission, and the European Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case’.

Consequently, it is not correct to say that the Commission or its servants caused any damage, destruction and contamination to the water supply, health, or the general environment affecting local people.

This not withstanding the Commission Delegation in Kenya has repeatedly advised and continues to advise the local community about the funding possibilities for community based projects through the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) programme, which is financed from the European Development Fund. The fund very successfully aims to help local communities to meet some of their priority needs (health, water, education, roads, income generating activities, etc). Furthermore, the Delegation facilitated contacts between the local community and CDTF and provided them with an outline proposal for a community water project in their areas prepared by a local engineering and development consultancy.

Unfortunately, the local community to date failed to introduce any application for project funding with CDTF.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/716 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/716

---

(2004/C 84 E/0804)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject:   Boris Shikhmuradov

Is the Commission aware of the case of Boris Shikhmuradov, the Turkmen opposition leader, charged with the attempted assassination of President Nyazov?

Shikhmuradov has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Halk Maslikhat, Turkmenistan's supreme representative body, and therefore has not received a fair trial through the court process.

Can the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities requesting observation of international standards in allowing the defendant access to a fair trial?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The case of Boris Shikmuradov is well-known to the Commission. The Union has expressed its concerns in demarches on this case as well as on the other human rights cases in Turkmenistan following the assassination attempt against President Niyazov on 25 November 2002.

Mr Shikmuradov was a direct interlocutor with the Commission at the time he was Foreign Minister of his country. His video-taped confession and his trial, organised five days after his arrest, without proper defence and international assistance, is not in line with Turkmenistan commitments in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Commission agrees with the assessment that Mr Shikhmuradov has not received a fair trial. More generally, the Union's concern, expressed in the OSCE Permanent Council, is with the methods used in the investigation and follow-up to the events of 25 November 2002. While conscious of the absence of political dialogue within our Trade and Cooperation Agreement, with Turkmenistan, the Commission will continue to exert pressure on this and other human rights issues through diplomatic channels.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/717 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/717

---

(2004/C 84 E/0805)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/03

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject:   Arrest of journalists in Gibraltar

As the Commission is aware, on 20 January 2003 a group of journalists who were preparing to film the action being taken by the environmentalist group Greenpeace in protest against the oil tanker Vemamagna in Gibraltar were arrested.

Members of the Campo de Gibraltar Press Association have reported that the officers manning the Gibraltarian patrol boats behaved in a violent and arbitrary fashion and then proceeded to arrest some of the journalists present and to detain them in police cells for a nine-hour period, following which they were released without charge.

The above-mentioned Association deems such behaviour to constitute a direct attack on freedom of speech, on the right to report freely and on the right of the general public to be informed.

Could the Commission seek information from the Gibraltar authorities as to the reasons which prompted the officers of the Royal Gibraltar Police to arrest the journalists?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0201/03 by Mr Menéndez del Valle (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 13.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/717 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/717

---

(2004/C 84 E/0806)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0587/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Balkan sugar

Can the European Commission define the concept of ‘massive increase of exports into the European Community above the level of normal production and export capacity’ to which Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 (1) refers to allow possible measures of suspension of the arrangements provided for in this Regulation?

Does the Commission consider the current level of importation of sugar (205 000 tonnes from January 2002 to November 2002) as ‘usual’ compared to 70 132 tonnes in 2001 and 613 tonnes in 2000?

Following a recent report by OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) on imports of sugar from FRY, the European Commission is expected to propose a clause of temporary suspension of the Balkans regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18.9.2000 (Article 12) for this country. However, a temporary suspension can take effect for a period of three months only.

What steps is the Commission intending to take after this three month delay? Will the Commission make sure that, in this space of time, Serbia will find an efficient way of providing proof of origin for the sugar which will be exported to the European Union?

FRY and the EU are supposed to prepare an Association and Stabilisation agreement in the near future. Taking into account FRY's current difficulties in establishing proof of origin, as well as their intention to join the EU, has the Commission considered the possibility of arranging limited export quotas on the basis of the commercial sugar trade for the last five years, with a possible increase in these quotas if Serbian production increases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process, amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/1998, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1763/1999 and (EC) No 6/2000 was adopted to provide the Western Balkans with the greatest possible opportunities to export to the Community in order to support the economic development of the region. This development is a necessary condition for political stability and peace and is consequently one of the pillars of the Union's Stabilization and Association Process.

As regards possible measures, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2563/2000 of 20 November 2000 (2), provides two safeguard provisions: Article 12 and Article 4(3).

Sugar imports from the Western Balkan have indeed increased significantly. The Commission is aware of this increase and is monitoring the imports very closely by means of a surveillance program, whereby customs administrations of Member States report on a weekly basis. Furthermore, the Commission abolished export refunds for sugar exports with destination to the Western Balkans in view to limit the incentive for the current trade pattern.

The Commission is considering all measures to address the issue of proper enforcement of rules of origin on imports of sugar from Serbia and Montenegro, including a temporary suspension of trade preferences. Under Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000, the Commission may take measures to suspend in whole or in part the preferential arrangements for a period of three months, subject to certain conditions. The period could be renewed, if no substantial improvement of the situation in the country happened.

The Commission works on a daily basis with Serbia and Montenegro to improve the functioning of customs operations. A Community-funded Customs Assistance Mission (CAFAO) is very active throughout the country in advising the authorities. The Commission clearly expects that Serbia and Montenegro will do their utmost to provide for a reliable system of certification and verification of origin.

The start of negotiations on a Stabilization and Association Agreement with Serbia and Montenegro is subject to a positive assessment (feasibility report) from the Commission on the readiness of the country to negotiate and implement such an Agreement.

The Commission considers that subjecting duty-free imports of sugar from Serbia and Montenegro to a quota would not efficiently address this issue of proper enforcement of rules of origin.

The Commission would envisage quotas only as a possible measure against the risk of serious market disturbances through excessive imports.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 23.9.2000, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 295, 23.11.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/719 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/719

---

(2004/C 84 E/0807)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Perugia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/719 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/719

---

(2004/C 84 E/0808)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1040/03 and E-1046/03

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipalities of Perugia and Terni.

In particular, the Honourable Member asks whether the municipalities of Perugia and Terni have submitted projects for the Leader+ programme, whether these municipalities have obtained funding for their projects and whether this funding has been used.

The documents in the Commission's possession show that the municipalities of Perugia and Terni form part of the territory participating in the Leader+ CIP for Umbria, which the Commission approved by its Decision C(2001) 3489 of 7 November 2001. The Umbria region has recently selected the Local Action Groups which will take part in the Leader+ programme. The municipalities of Perugia and Terni are thus among the possible beneficiaries of the LAGs actions, but no project has received any funding yet.

It should be noted that the Commission does not decide on specific projects or on the selection of the LAGs. It decides to contribute to a programme which includes criteria for selecting the groups using procedures which will guarantee the proper Leader approach. The final selection of the groups is made by the Member State or regional authority responsible, whereas the projects part-financed are selected by the LAGs in accordance with the conditions laid down in the programme.

As a result, the ‘Assessorato all'Agricoltura’ of the Umbria region, the body responsible for managing the programme, could provide information on the various beneficiaries, on the submission deadlines for invitations to tender planned by the Region and, more specifically, on the municipalities of Perugia and Terni.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/720 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/720

---

(2004/C 84 E/0809)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds for the processing and marketing of agricultural products and for rural development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the EAGGF? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the EAGGF?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni.

In Umbria, the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) provides part-financing for the Leader+ programme, which was covered in the reply to Written Question No 1046/03 asked by Ms Angelilli (1).

The Guarantee Section of the EAGGF provides part-financing for the Rural Development Plan for the region of Umbria for 2000/06, which the Commission approved by Decision C(2000) 2158 of 20 July 2000.

Here it should be noted that implementation of the aid part-financed at Community level under this programme is a matter for the Italian national and regional authorities. The Commission is responsible for monitoring and inspecting the programme, but it is not responsible for on-the-spot management of the various measures. In the context of this monitoring, the annual reports made under Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 (2) and 445/2002 (3) do not show whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects under the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

As a result, the Assessorato all'Agricoltura' of the Umbria region, which is the authority responsible for managing the programme, could provide specific details of the various beneficiaries and the deadlines for the calls issued by the region, including those specifically for the municipality of Terni.

---

(1)  See page 719.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/721 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/721

---

(2004/C 84 E/0810)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1396/03

by Margie Sudre (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   Uniform application of a reduced rate of VAT in the restaurant sector

In its resolution of 14 May 2002, the European Parliament called on the Commission to ‘draw up at the earliest opportunity proposals to include the restaurant sector, and possibly other as yet ineligible tourist services, on the list of sectors of activity entitled to a permanent reduction in the VAT rate, so as to boost employment and modernisation in the industries concerned and make European tourism better equipped to deal with international competition’.

This reduced rate of VAT for the restaurant sector and other tourism services would enable the strong job-creation potential of tourism enterprises to be swiftly harnessed, and would constitute a vital asset for European tourism and economic activity in general.

The Commission's work programme for 2003 indicates that a proposal for a directive on the structure of reduced VAT rates, which aims to review the relevant rules so that a simpler and more harmonised structure can be introduced in the European Union, is scheduled for publication in June 2003.

Can the Commission confirm its intended timetable for this proposal for a directive?

Will the simplification and more uniform application of the Community VAT system which this proposal aims to put into effect satisfy the expectations expressed by the European Parliament (and in particular by France) that a reduced rate of VAT for tourism services be applied more broadly, and in particular in the hotel and restaurant sector?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

As announced in its communication on the new VAT strategy (1) and mentioned in its report on reduced rates adopted in October 2001 (2), the Commission intends to carry out a comprehensive review of the structure of reduced rates in the first half of 2003. As part of this exercise, an examination will be made of the restaurant sector and all reduced rate applications from other categories. Several other sectors too have frequently expressed an interest in the use of tax incentives.

The Commission is currently conducting an evaluation, based mainly on reports by the Member States, of the experimental application of reduced rates on labour-intensive services. The participating Member States' evaluations were unable to clearly establish the link between a lower rate of VAT on labour-intensive services and job creation or a reduction in the underground economy.

The Commission confirms its intention to submit a proposal for a directive in mid-2003 which will comprehensively review reduced rates with a view to the simplification and more uniform application of VAT. The basic aim of this proposal is to improve the way the internal market operates by rationalising the use of reduced rates by Member States, avoiding potential distortions of competition by allowing Member States equal opportunity to apply reduced rates.

No decision has yet been taken on the review to be undertaken. Nevertheless, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that hotel services are already included in the list of goods and services eligible for a reduced rate (Annex H, category 11). Restaurant services, however, only qualify for the reduced rate in eight Member States, on the basis of special derogations granted to them.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(2)  COM(2001) 599 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/722 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/722

---

(2004/C 84 E/0811)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1398/03

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2003)

Subject:   Publication of the fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen

The fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen (Tomorrow's Europe) produced by the Commission Representation in the Netherlands has not appeared since the end of February 2003. As I understand it, this is because of an administrative slip-up. This newsletter is greatly appreciated by readers because it is accessible and provides a starting point for obtaining further information. In view of the forthcoming European elections, in particular, will the Commission make interim arrangements as soon as possible to enable publication of the newsletter to continue until such time as the new tender procedure is organised.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for his positive comments on the newsletter ‘Europa van Morgen’.

The Commission's duty is to constantly adapt its information material to the evolving requirements of its readers. Issuing a printed newsletter is expensive. The Commission needs therefore to evaluate regularly its content and presentation against other means of communication, as the only way to ensure that taxpayer's money is spent in the respect of the principles of sound financial management.

The Commission will make sure that information is provided to the relevant target groups by its Representation in the Netherlands in the most appropriate form.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/723 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/723

---

(2004/C 84 E/0812)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1437/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:   Direct payments of EUR 10 million per month in EU aid to the Palestinian Authority

Is it correct that since 2002 the Commission has ceased payment of the monthly direct budgetary aid of EUR 10 million to the Palestinian Authority?

Is this cessation of direct budgetary aid a temporary measure or has the Commission now decided to end the monthly lump-sum payments once and for all?

What were the Commission's reasons for ending these monthly payments?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The primary objective of Union budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been to mitigate the effects of the freeze of revenue transfers by the Government of Israel, thus contributing to the functioning of the PA administration and to the restoration of the conditions necessary for peace once the present crisis is over.

The Union's support has in the short term helped to avert the collapse of the institutional structures within the Palestinian Territories. Union's support has also been tied to conditions which have promoted reform in the PA, in particular by contributing to the consolidation and transparency of the PA's public finances.

The importance of the Union's assistance to the PA was fully recognised by the international community, most recently at the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meeting of international donors (including the European Union, United States, Norway, and the World Bank) in London on 18/19 February 2003.

Whereas the economic effects of the crisis are still putting a strain on the PA's revenues, the Israeli government has now resumed regular revenue transfers. So far, four consecutive monthly payments have been made by the Israeli government for October 2002-January 2003, paid in December 2002-March 2003. In addition, the Government of Israel has begun repaying arrears which have accumulated since December 2002. As of March 2003 a total of EUR 295 million has been paid over to the PA.

Consequently it has been possible for the Union to redirect its assistance to the PA. The current budgetary assistance programme will therefore be replaced by other forms of aid as announced by the Commission on 30 April 2003.

If Israel were to freeze transfers, a decision to resume direct budgetary support may need to be considered on the basis of an assessment of the fiscal outlook of the PA.

Payment of the final instalments of monthly budgetary support relating to November and December of 2002 will be made to the PA in the coming weeks.

A report summarising the history of Commission Budgetary Assistance in favour of the PA is sent direct to the Honourable member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/724

---

(2004/C 84 E/0813)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject:   Euratom/Distortions in the electricity market

| 1. | The Common Position adopted by the Council on the revised Electricity Market Directive states that the lack of a level playing field in generation is one of the shortcomings of the EU's electricity market. The Euratom Loan Facility can only be used for nuclear projects. Why is this not perceived as a market distortion? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Common Position adopted by the Council on the revised Electricity Market Directive states that the lack of a level playing field in generation is one of the shortcomings of the EU's electricity market. The Euratom Loan Facility can only be used for nuclear projects. Why is this not perceived as a market distortion?

| 2. | Are there any circumstances in which loans can be granted for non-nuclear projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are there any circumstances in which loans can be granted for non-nuclear projects?

| 3. | Do the Euratom loans, or the grants awarded by either PHARE or TACIS, have to comply with the public procurement principles, as described in Directives 1992/50/EWG (1), 1993/36/EWG (2) and 1993/37/EWG (3)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the Euratom loans, or the grants awarded by either PHARE or TACIS, have to comply with the public procurement principles, as described in Directives 1992/50/EWG (1), 1993/36/EWG (2) and 1993/37/EWG (3)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

| 1. | The fact that this is a dedicated facility does not mean that it distorts the market, since other facilities are available for ‘competitors’. For Member States this is clearly the case, through European Investment Bank (EIB) activities and those of commercial banks. For third countries there are also the EIB and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), for example, which finance other energy sources. It is to be noted that Euratom loans are given at the market rates available to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The fact that this is a dedicated facility does not mean that it distorts the market, since other facilities are available for ‘competitors’. For Member States this is clearly the case, through European Investment Bank (EIB) activities and those of commercial banks. For third countries there are also the EIB and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), for example, which finance other energy sources. It is to be noted that Euratom loans are given at the market rates available to the Commission.

| 2. | As the legal basis for the facility is the Euratom Treaty, Euratom loans can only be granted to nuclear projects. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As the legal basis for the facility is the Euratom Treaty, Euratom loans can only be granted to nuclear projects.

| 3. | Within the Member States, projects for which loans are granted are governed by the aforementioned Directives to the extent that they are carried out by awarding authorities to which these Directives apply. Other operators may fall under Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors. In third countries, the respective domestic law applies. All grants provided by PHARE and TACIS in any third country have to comply with the public procurement principles described in the applicable Community Directives. However, the detailed rules laid down in the Directives only apply in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Within the Member States, projects for which loans are granted are governed by the aforementioned Directives to the extent that they are carried out by awarding authorities to which these Directives apply. Other operators may fall under Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors. In third countries, the respective domestic law applies. All grants provided by PHARE and TACIS in any third country have to comply with the public procurement principles described in the applicable Community Directives. However, the detailed rules laid down in the Directives only apply in Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/724

---

(2004/C 84 E/0814)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/03

by Florence Kuntz (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject:   Safeguarding the Iraqi archaeological heritage

The bombs that have been raining down on Mesopotamia since 20 March and the destruction and looting of the Baghdad Archaeological Museum remind us that Iraq's archaeological heritage has since 1991 been in peril.

Apart from the destruction of archaeological sites during the Gulf War there has been the looting, the departure of foreign archaeological missions, the abandonment of digs and trafficking with the West in stolen property.

The American military campaign of the past three weeks has brought about the collapse of the Iraqi regime. In the absence of a government, one can only wonder who is now protecting the seven national museums and some 10 000 archaeological sites throughout the country.

How does the European Union wish to show its support for the Iraqi people and help them protect their exceptional heritage?

How does the European Union intend to mobilise the Member States against the illegal trade in stolen property?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/725 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/725

---

(2004/C 84 E/0815)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1509/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject:   Sacking of Iraq's cultural and artistic heritage — the role of the European Union

The sacking of the National Archaeological Museum in Baghdad and other museum buildings in Iraq as well as the devastation of the country's libraries and historical archives by vandals, but also and above all by professional thieves clearly in the pay of Western antique dealers, began in Baghdad on the night of 10 April 2003 and after a pause started again on a vast scale in other cities and at archaeological sites in Iraq between 14/15 April 2003.

As is reported in the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph (20 April 2003), many of the artefacts taken (around 179 thousand in Baghdad alone) are already being offered for sale on various Internet sites. This is a terrible tragedy for the whole of mankind and one compared by the leading US archaeologist Paul Zimansky to the fire that destroyed the library in Alexandria.

| 1. | Will the Commission condemn these events as a flagrant violation, by the coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, of the Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission condemn these events as a flagrant violation, by the coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, of the Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property?

| 2. | What concrete support will the Commission provide to the call issued on 17 April 2003 by Dr Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of Unesco, to the international community, the UN Security Council and the governments of the states bordering Iraq for all states to adopt the requisite ‘emergency legal and administrative measures’ to prevent the importation, trafficking or passage through their territory of any cultural, archaeological or bibliographical object from Iraq, and to enforce the confiscation and restitution of stolen artefacts to Iraq, not least through criminal penalties under the laws of individual countries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What concrete support will the Commission provide to the call issued on 17 April 2003 by Dr Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of Unesco, to the international community, the UN Security Council and the governments of the states bordering Iraq for all states to adopt the requisite ‘emergency legal and administrative measures’ to prevent the importation, trafficking or passage through their territory of any cultural, archaeological or bibliographical object from Iraq, and to enforce the confiscation and restitution of stolen artefacts to Iraq, not least through criminal penalties under the laws of individual countries?

| 3. | Will the Commission ask the EU Member States to prohibit the legal and illegal trade in any artefacts originating from the area that was once Mesopotamia for a minimum period of at least five years? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission ask the EU Member States to prohibit the legal and illegal trade in any artefacts originating from the area that was once Mesopotamia for a minimum period of at least five years?

| 4. | Will the President of the Commission and Commissioners Lamy, Patten, Vitorino and Bolkestein, in the areas for which they are competent, report to the European Parliament at its plenary sitting of 12 to 15 May 2003 on the measures adopted to end this destruction? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the President of the Commission and Commissioners Lamy, Patten, Vitorino and Bolkestein, in the areas for which they are competent, report to the European Parliament at its plenary sitting of 12 to 15 May 2003 on the measures adopted to end this destruction?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1500/03 and P-1509/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-0264/03 by Mr Manisco and H-0274/03 by Mrs Zorba during question time at Parliament's May 2003 part session (1).

---

(1)  Written answer of 13.5.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/726 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/726

---

(2004/C 84 E/0816)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1510/03

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject:   Direct financial assistance to the Palestine National Authority

Since June 2001 the Commission has been providing financial support for the Palestine National Authority in the form of direct payments of around 10 million euro per month. Will the Commission say if and when, and under what circumstances and on what grounds, these payments have been suspended?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-1437/03 by Mr Laschet (1).

---

(1)  See page 723.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/726 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/726

---

(2004/C 84 E/0817)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1525/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Privatisation of art treasures as a result of widespread thefts from museums and inadequate checks on the international art trade

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the growing number of large-scale thefts in the past few years of art works exhibited or stored in museums, such as paintings by famous artists in the Netherlands and artefacts from archaeological sites in Iraq which are thousands of years old? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the growing number of large-scale thefts in the past few years of art works exhibited or stored in museums, such as paintings by famous artists in the Netherlands and artefacts from archaeological sites in Iraq which are thousands of years old?

| 2. | Is the registration of stolen works of art, which prevents the objects from being traded openly between EU Member States, restricted to selective administration for instance by members of ‘Artloss’, which means that in practice it remains largely unclear what art works being traded are stolen, or is there a comprehensive central registration system managed by Europol or Interpol that can make such a trade impossible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the registration of stolen works of art, which prevents the objects from being traded openly between EU Member States, restricted to selective administration for instance by members of ‘Artloss’, which means that in practice it remains largely unclear what art works being traded are stolen, or is there a comprehensive central registration system managed by Europol or Interpol that can make such a trade impossible?

| 3. | Does the Netherlands now occupy an exceptional position in the trade in stolen art so that in practice its role as an international centre for the art trade is supported by inadequate policing capacity, which merely registers but does not investigate, and by failure to comply with international agreements and the fact that purchasers of stolen art works are entitled to become the legal owners after 21 years? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Netherlands now occupy an exceptional position in the trade in stolen art so that in practice its role as an international centre for the art trade is supported by inadequate policing capacity, which merely registers but does not investigate, and by failure to comply with international agreements and the fact that purchasers of stolen art works are entitled to become the legal owners after 21 years?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the fear that the illegal privatisation of art which has been collected for the public with public money cannot be prevented in a Europe with open frontiers without strong counter measures in the area of checks, investigation and punishment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the fear that the illegal privatisation of art which has been collected for the public with public money cannot be prevented in a Europe with open frontiers without strong counter measures in the area of checks, investigation and punishment?

| 5. | Does the Commission consider that further action is required to prevent, or at least reduce far as possible, the trade in stolen art? What measures can be expected from the Commission in the near future in this sphere? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission consider that further action is required to prevent, or at least reduce far as possible, the trade in stolen art? What measures can be expected from the Commission in the near future in this sphere?

Source: Netherlands 3 TV channel, Zembla programme, 17 April 2002.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned at the extent of the theft of, and illicit trafficking in, cultural objects. It deplores in particular the recent looting of the cultural heritage of Iraq. Particular measures concerning cultural objects originating in Iraq are being considered as part of the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1483.

The possibility of a central database, or network of databases, of stolen cultural goods at European level is currently under consideration by a working group established by Europol. The possibility of including works of art within the future SIS II (second-generation Schengen Information System) will also have to be carefully considered. Details of the database run by Interpol may be found on its website: (www.inter-pol.com.)

As regards the policing practices and laws of the Netherlands in comparison with other Member States, the Commission is not currently in a position to comment.

The Commission appreciates the need for measures to protect cultural goods. Regulation No 3911/92/EEC (1), on the export of cultural goods, subjects the export of cultural goods outside the customs territory of the Community to the presentation of an export licence. In addition, Directive 93/7/EEC (2), on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, provides for cooperation mechanisms between Member States and a procedure for returning national treasures when these have left the territory of a Member State unlawfully.

Recently the Commission has intensified efforts to improve measures to combat illicit trafficking in cultural goods. As part of the European Forum on the prevention of organised crime, the second workshop on the prevention of illicit trafficking in cultural goods was organised by the Commission in Brussels on 9 December 2002. Over one hundred people took part, representing a wide variety of interests: owners, institutions (ministries, international organisations, the Commission, Unesco, Unidroit, Europol, Interpol, etc), police forces and customs authorities, insurers, collectors, art dealers and their associations, intermediaries and private organisations. One of the recommendations of that workshop was to create the Europol working group referred to above to consider the possibility of a European database, or network of existing databases, of stolen cultural goods. A third workshop is planned for later this year.

The Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods, created within the framework of Regulation No 3911/92, has recently issued ‘Guidelines for Administrative Co-operation between the competent authorities’ to assist in the protection of cultural goods in the Community. Also the Commission is considering a project to develop a website to assist in the rapid exchange of information concerning the movement of cultural goods. In addition, a call for tenders for a study concerning the traceability of cultural goods has been launched by the Commission on 4 June 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 395, 31.12.1992. Amended by Regulation No 2469/96, OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 9; and Regulation No 974/2001, OJ L 137, 19.5.2001.

(2)  OJ L 74, 27.3.1993. Amended by Directive 96/100/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 60, 1.3.1997 and Directive 2001/38/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 187, 10.7.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/727 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/727

---

(2004/C 84 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Commission quarterly briefings and Small Business Europe: the participation of government-funded national bodies in Commission briefings

Is the Commission aware that the organisation known as ‘Small Business Europe’, which purports to represent all small businesses in the UK, is in fact a body created by the UK Labour Government, funded from tax payers money, with no mandate from actual small businesses and wholly unrepresentative of the sector? Could the Commission indicate how many government-funded and government funded national bodies like Small Business Europe are invited to attend regular quarterly briefings by the Commission for European SME and small business representative bodies and why? If the Commission is inviting national organisations, why does it not invite any of the UK bodies which actually do represent real small businesses?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

In the framework of its strategy to enhance contacts with its stakeholders, Directorate General (DG) Enterprise invites a large number of business organisations at European and national level, with horizontal or sectoral interests to information meetings, seminars and conferences. These organisations draw their funds from a variety of sources.

At the last major conference (‘Industrial Policy in an Enlarged Europe’, on 21 January 2003) more than 200 such business associations were represented, along with participants from trade unions, environmental and consumer protection organisations, government and company representatives.

Several times per year DG Enterprise also invites a group of non-profit making, permanent organisations, which represent enterprises, professional federations or employers and have a horizontal or cross-cutting orientation, going beyond a specific economic sector. Most of these have national member organisations in several European states, which sometimes also participate in these meetings. Around half of the invited organisations represent small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) interests either exclusively or partly. The complete list can be found in the Coneccs database of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/civilsociety/coneccs/indexen.htm). The meeting structure is listed as ‘consultation with business organisations’ and comprises at present 26 organisations, among them the organisation called ‘smallbusi-ness|europe’.

The Commission is aware that ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is at present funded by the Small Business Service, an Executive Agency of the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is working in close co-operation with United Kingdom cross-sector organisations representing SMEs. It highlights their views at the European level and, the Commission understands, consults them regularly.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/728 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/728

---

(2004/C 84 E/0819)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Establishment of a secondary school in the small town of Rizokarpaso in Turkish-occupied Cyprus

In the small town of Rizokarpaso in Turkish-occupied Cyprus where Greek Cypriot families live in an enclave there is an elementary school which today has 23 pupils.

However, because there is no secondary school in Rizokarpaso, these pupils are obliged to move with their families to the free areas of Cyprus in order to continue their education.

Since all citizens must be given the opportunity of education and given that Cyprus has been admitted as a Member State of the European Union, what action does the Commission intend to take both in respect of the Turkish Cypriot community, whose representatives have declared that they are examining the matter, and as part of the measures it itself is promoting, with a view to facilitating the establishment of a secondary school in the occupied village of Rizokarpaso in Cyprus?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/729 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/729

---

(2004/C 84 E/0820)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Re-opening of Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso

The Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso has been closed since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Since that time, children of families living in the enclave who finish their primary education in the area and wish to go on to secondary school are forced to move to the non-occupied areas of the island. The outcome of this situation is that families are moving from their homes and the Greek population of the area is dwindling.

| 1. | What steps will the Commission take to bring about the re-opening of the secondary school at Rizokarpasso given the fresh measures recently announced to bring Turkish Cypriots closer to the EU and the rapprochement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps will the Commission take to bring about the re-opening of the secondary school at Rizokarpasso given the fresh measures recently announced to bring Turkish Cypriots closer to the EU and the rapprochement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities?

| 2. | How can the Commission contribute towards securing the rights to education of the children of the enclave, which the Turkish Cypriot side guaranteed when it signed the Vienna III Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How can the Commission contribute towards securing the rights to education of the children of the enclave, which the Turkish Cypriot side guaranteed when it signed the Vienna III Agreement?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1983/03 and E-2033/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of education policies remain with the Member States. The competencies of the Community are limited.

Concerning the re-opening of the secondary school in Rizokarpaso, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of both of the Honourable Members.

Regarding the Commission's contribution towards securing the right to education of the children of Rizokarpaso, the Commission would like to refer to its Communication on promoting economic development of the northern part of Cyprus and bringing it closer to the Union (1). The Commission is proposing various measures bringing the northern part closer to the Union, ‘inter alia’, encouraging the participation in community programmes such as the Comenius programme for schools. The Commission is working on finding ways to implement these measures in consultation with the Government of Cyprus.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 325 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/729 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/729

---

(2004/C 84 E/0821)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2376/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since 1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003. Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to death.

Does the Commission believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where they might be put to death?

What measures does the Commission intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In accordance with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union, ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ This is one of the principles that are common to the Member States and that the Commission must respect in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission would recall its answer of 29 January 2003 to Questions P-3821/02 by Mrs Paciotti and P-3826/02 by Mr Di Lello Finuoli (1) concerning this case and the absence at this stage of powers to intervene in the examination of any infringement of Article 19 of the Charter, the reason being that no Community provisions exist on asylum procedures and on determination of the need for international protection and the relevant statutes. The draft directives on these two matters are still being examined within the Council.

The Commission would also recall that interested parties may bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Court's Rules if they consider that provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights have not been complied with.

---

(1)  See page 707.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/730 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/730

---

(2004/C 84 E/0822)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2748/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Rizokarpasso primary school

In my previous question (E-2033/03 (1)), I asked the Commission to do everything within its power, in the context of the rapprochement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, to secure the re-opening of the secondary school at Rizokarpasso in occupied Cyprus. Unfortunately, however, not only has the secondary school failed to re-open but the Denktash regime appears also to have decided to close the primary school in the area. Since requiring the two teachers to leave Rizokarpasso within two hours, the authorities have as yet failed to approve the transfer of the two new teachers who, according to instructions from the Education Ministry, should have taken up their duties on 1 September.

The inevitable result of this particular practice will be to stifle all cultural and educational opportunities for the population of the enclave. Without teachers, the school will close. The children will either be forced to stay in their villages deprived of the fundamental right to education or they will abandon their homes to become refugees.

At practically the same time, the regime announced via its police authorities that it was banning pilgrims from entering the Holy Church of St Synesios at Rizokarpasso, one of several visited by many pilgrims since the partial lifting of travel restrictions.

Is the Commission aware of the developments surrounding the primary school at Rizokarpasso? What representations will it make to the Denktash regime and the Turkish government, in accordance with its obligations under the partnership agreement for the accession of Turkey, to avert the prospect of such an inauspicious future for Greek Cypriot families living in this enclave in occupied Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the school situation in the enclaved Greek Cypriot community of Rizokarpasso. Only recently the Commission replied to several written questions (2) of and letters by Honourable Members regarding the situation in Rizokarpasso.

Within the framework of the Council, the issue was also discussed in the last COCEN-COSEE (3) meeting in the Council and Greece provided its own extensive information on the obstacles to the operation of the primary school.

The Presidency has instructed its Embassy in Nicosia to gather further information including an assessment by the Government of the Republic. The Presidency stated that the issue would have to be discussed in depth before any form of action could be considered by the Union.

The Honourable Member will appreciate, as earlier indicated in the replies, that the Commission's responsibilities in the field of education are restricted and limited in accordance with Article 149 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  See page 729.

(2)  Joint reply to E-1983/03 by Mr Alavanos and E-2033/03 by Mr Hatzidakis.

(3)  Central and Southeast Europe Working Party in the Council.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/731 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/731

---

(2004/C 84 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3129/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Guinea-Bissau, Commission support

The media have reported that the former Portuguese Foreign Minister, at the end of a meeting with his EU counterparts, asked the Commission to ‘focus particularly on cooperation programmes with Guinea-Bissau’, a country which recently experienced a coup d'état and is now making the transition to democracy.

The Commission:

| — | how does it intend to examine the Portuguese Government's request; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it intend to examine the Portuguese Government's request;

| — | what information does it have to the way the Guinean political process is developing; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have to the way the Guinean political process is developing;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to collaborate in the transition process in Guinea-Bissau? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to collaborate in the transition process in Guinea-Bissau?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is carefully monitoring the political transition process in Guinea-Bissau, further to the military coup of 14 September 2003, with particular reference to the EU Presidency declaration condemning this coup.

In the Framework of the Cotonou Agreement, the Commission is currently exploring the possibilities to positively influence developments in Guinea-Bissau.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/732 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/732

---

(2004/C 84 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3142/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Career movements of Directors-General

Could the Commission submit to the Parliament a full analysis of all career movements of Directors-General since 1999 including a full list of all people who have held that office for any part of that period, details about when they first became a Director-General, any subsequent positions in the institutions they have held, any reasons for excluding someone from the mobility policy, their ages and their anticipated retirement date?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/732 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/732

---

(2004/C 84 E/0825)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Rotation principle in Directorates-General

The Commission operates a system whereby senior officials are moved from one Directorate-General to another after a certain period (around five years). This is based on the (in my view correct) assumption that a certain form of mobility among officials is desirable, and that the rotation principle reduces the risk of irregularities.

However, it has emerged from the recent publicity concerning the problems at Eurostat that the Director-General there was no longer subject to the mobility requirement because he was approaching retirement and it was no longer felt appropriate to move him.

How many officials are currently exempt from the mobility requirement?

Apart from impending retirement, are there other grounds for waiving this requirement? What are they?

In view of the Eurostat affair, will the Commission in future cease to exempt officials from the mobility requirement?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3142/03 and E-3311/03

given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Upon coming into office in September 1999, this Commission established guidelines for the appointment of its senior officials. Under those provisions, Directors-General are subject to mobility after five years and would not normally stay in a post for longer than seven years. The detailed provisions on selection and appointment of Directors-General are available to Parliament and have been published for all staff in the Administrative Guide.

From the list of career movements of Directors-General since 1999 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, the Honourable Member will see that no current Director-General has been in his or her current post for more than five years.

In September 1999, eight Directors-General had been in their posts for more than seven years and four for more than five years. Of that total of 12, two moved posts or left the Institution in 1999, four in 2000, two in 2001, two in 2002 and two in 2003. The mobility provisions were not implemented in the case of the Director General for Eurostat initially because of his central role in the period running up to and following the introduction of the Euro and, subsequently, because of his impending early retirement. The procedure for his replacement was initiated by publication of his post on 9 January 2003 as part of a wider mobility schedule relating to several DGs which was prepared in 2002.

The Commission recognises the practical need to take due account of the interests of the Service when deciding on the timing of mobility moves and a limited period remaining before retirement can be one of the factors taken into consideration.

No officials are exempt from the mobility requirement and the Commission does not intend to introduce such exemptions or to change the current guidelines.

It is, of course, not possible to anticipate retirement dates of personnel with precision because some officials choose not to continue in employment until the age of 65 when it is compulsory.

The legal advice tendered to me is that systematic provision of information on the ages of named Directors General would breach the personal data protection provisions of Regulation 45/2001/EC and, specifically, Article 6 of that Statute.

The Commission can, however, inform the Honourable Member that of the 31 existing Directors General, one is 46, one is 48, two are 49, one is 50, three are 53, two are 54, one is 55, six are 56, one is 57, five are 58, three are 60, one is 61, two are 62, and two are 64.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/733 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/733

---

(2004/C 84 E/0826)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Mobile telephone safety

Given the findings of recent studies which show that the new generation of mobile telephones can interfere with many types of heart pacemaker, can the Commission detail what measures are being taken to prevent harm to the health of EU citizens?

It would seem that newer pacemakers that are fitted with a ceramic filter are immune. Can the Commission confirm that steps are being taken to introduce these models across the industry and to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of using the old models?

Can the Commission also detail what information it has provided regarding the safety of using mobile telephones in conjunction with a pacemaker since 1994?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the studies to which the Honourable Member is referring. Similarly, the Commission is not aware that under the vigilance systems in place with regard to medical devices, incidents have occurred.

Pacemakers must meet the requirements established by Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on active implantable medical devices (1). These requirements imply, amongst others, that the devices must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, when implanted under the conditions and for the intended purpose, their use does not compromise the clinical condition or the safety of patients. More specifically pacemakers must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to remove or minimize, as far as possible, risks connected with reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions, such as magnetic fields, external electrical influences, electrostatic discharge, pressure or variations in pressure and acceleration. Also, the manufacturer must provide an instruction leaflet allowing the physician to brief the patient on contra-indications and precautions to be taken. These should cover, in particular, the precautions to be taken as regards the risks of exposure mentioned above. This information is to be updated in the light of new risks that may occur.

From research performed on this matter, the Commission understands that interference between mobile phones and pacemakers can be avoided provided a distance of 20-30 cm from the pacemakers is ensured.

The Commission would expect relevant new information to be provided by physicians in their relations with patients. In addition, national health care systems may have to provide information through the various means at their disposal.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 20.7.1990.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/734 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/734

---

(2004/C 84 E/0827)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3325/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Community expenditure

Will the Commission state what the total Community expenditure, throughout the EU, has been each year for the last five years?

Will the Commission set out in a table the total public expenditure for each EU Member State for every year for the last five years?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

| 1. | The total outturn of Community payments including payments for ECSC, Euratom and the European Development Fund (EDF) is as follows:






  (million euros) |
| --- | --- |
| Year | Amount |
| 1998 | 82 502,6 |
| 1999 | 84 951,6 |
| 2000 | 82 132,1 |
| 2001 | 82 562,3 |
| 2002 | 89 886,2 |

1.

The total outturn of Community payments including payments for ECSC, Euratom and the European Development Fund (EDF) is as follows:

(million euros)

Year

Amount

1998

82 502,6

1999

84 951,6

2000

82 132,1

2001

82 562,3

2002

89 886,2

This data is drawn from Table 6 of the 2002 Financial Report (pp. 132-133 in the English version) and apply only to the outturn of payments, which normally is of special interest for the Member States.

The said report was circulated among the members of the Budget Committee during the first week of August 2003.

| 2. | The following table sets out total public expenditure of each Member State for every year for the last five years, according to national accounts figures officially communicated by the Member States to Eurostat. For the sake of comparison the outturn figures of the EU budget in payments have also been added.










  (million euros) |
| --- | --- |
| MemberStates | Total expenditure of general government — ESA 1995 (2) |
| 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| BE | 113 498 | 118 090 | 122 352 | 125 609 | 131 281 |
| DK | 88 741 | 91 459 | 94 050 | 97 890 | 101 989 |
| DE | 935 280 | 964 530 | 928 470 | 1 001 380 | 1 023 870 |
| EL | 52 101 | 56 085 | 61 357 | 62 582 | 66 266 |
| ES | 217 333 | 227 329 | 242 456 | 257 288 | 276 507 |
| FR | 698 788 | 725 799 | 747 982 | 775 817 | 814 435 |
| IE | 27 155 | 31 005 | 32 994 | 38 947 | 43 070 |
| IT | 533 571 | 541 648 | 546 939 | 591 793 | 599 804 |
| LU | 7 089 | 7 730 | 8 187 | 8 604 | 9 909 |
| NL | 166 014 | 175 554 | 182 228 | 200 033 | 211 162 |
| AT | 102 674 | 106 797 | 108 302 | 109 984 | 112 094 |
| PT | 44 283 | 48 906 | 52 196 | 57 015 | 59 572 |
| FI | 61 015 | 62 458 | 63 773 | 66 445 | 69 795 |
| SE | 134 482 | 142 295 | 149 381 | 139 920 | 149 349 |
| UK | 505 529 | 537 702 | 576 172 | 647 452 | 686 190 |
| EUR-15 | 3 687 551 | 3 837 387 | 3 916 839 | 4 180 760 | 4 355 293 |
| EU Budget (3) | 80 713 | 80 310 | 83 331 | 79 987 | 85 144 |

2.

The following table sets out total public expenditure of each Member State for every year for the last five years, according to national accounts figures officially communicated by the Member States to Eurostat. For the sake of comparison the outturn figures of the EU budget in payments have also been added.

(million euros)

MemberStates

Total expenditure of general government — ESA 1995 (2)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

BE

113 498

118 090

122 352

125 609

131 281

DK

88 741

91 459

94 050

97 890

101 989

DE

935 280

964 530

928 470

1 001 380

1 023 870

EL

52 101

56 085

61 357

62 582

66 266

ES

217 333

227 329

242 456

257 288

276 507

FR

698 788

725 799

747 982

775 817

814 435

IE

27 155

31 005

32 994

38 947

43 070

IT

533 571

541 648

546 939

591 793

599 804

LU

7 089

7 730

8 187

8 604

9 909

NL

166 014

175 554

182 228

200 033

211 162

AT

102 674

106 797

108 302

109 984

112 094

PT

44 283

48 906

52 196

57 015

59 572

FI

61 015

62 458

63 773

66 445

69 795

SE

134 482

142 295

149 381

139 920

149 349

UK

505 529

537 702

576 172

647 452

686 190

EUR-15

3 687 551

3 837 387

3 916 839

4 180 760

4 355 293

EU Budget (3)

80 713

80 310

83 331

79 987

85 144

---

(1)  Figures in national currency have been converted into euro according to average annual exchange rates.

(2)  European System of Accounts 1995.

(3)  Outturn of payment appropriations of the year and of appropriations carried forward from the previous year.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/735 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/735

---

(2004/C 84 E/0828)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   The use of Tetrapol technology in the EU

The Commission has acknowledged that there may be some effects on health arising from the use of GSM and TETRA, and that Member States are obliged to comply with Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) on limits of exposing the public to electromagnetic fields. The Commission has also acknowledged that the UK authorities apply health regulations regarding telephone masts in accordance with the Council Regulation. Could the Commission provide information on the use of the alternative Tetrapol technology within the EU?

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/736 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/736

---

(2004/C 84 E/0829)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3470/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Health risk reports relating to Tetrapol use

Could the Commission inform us whether there have been reports in any European countries of health risks and illnesses as the result of the use of Tetrapol in relation to the use of handsets and/or from people working or living near the masts?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3464/03 and E-3470/03

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

GSM, TETRA, Tetrapol (and UMTS) technologies are used by networks providing mobile communications services.

Tetrapol is a technology, which competes in the market for private mobile communications services, for instance with the TETRA technology. Information on the roll-out of Tetrapol is published on the Tetrapol Forum website. Information on the networks in Europe is found under: (http://www.tetrapol.com/www/corp/references.php?id_zone=4&id_industrie=0&x= 10&y=13).

The Commission is not aware of any reports of health risks and illnesses relating to the use of Tetrapol handsets and/or from people working or living near the Tetrapol masts. The existing regulatory framework in the Union and in Member States, such as applied for GSM and TETRA masts and handsets, is technology neutral and also appropriate for the Tetrapol technology. It provides for a high protection of health for our citizens. The Honourable Member is further referred to the response of the Commission to the large number of questions on this matter, recently to written questions E-3076/03 by Mr Meijer (1), E-3042/02 by Mr Miller (2) and H-0594/03 by Mr Papayannakis during question time at Parliament's October 2003 session (3).

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 211.

(2)  See page 499.

(3)  Written reply, 21.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/736 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/736

---

(2004/C 84 E/0830)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3471/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Buildings in ‘Es Trenc-Salobrar de Campos’

The present Majorcan Regional Government (Conseil de Mallorca) and the Autonomous Government of the Balearic Islands (Govern de les liles Balears), having abandoned a scheme for building a polo ground and additional accommodation for 3 000 people right next to Es Trenc-Salobrar de Campos, have now decided to approve the building of a 300-bed thermal hospital and clinic within the Es Trenc-Salobrar de Campos special bird protection area and site of community interest (code no: ES0000037).

Has the Spanish Government consulted the Commission with regard to this scheme, in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive?

Does the Commission believe that this building scheme within the special bird protection area and site of Community interest is compatible with the provisions of the Habitat Directive?

What steps, if appropriate, does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Honourable Member expressed his concern regarding the project to build a thermal hospital and a clinic within the Specially Protected Area (SPA) Es Trenc-Salobrar in Baleares.

According to the information available, the Commission has not received any request from the Spanish authorities.

Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive (1) set out the circumstances within a project where negative effects on Natura 2000 sites may or may not be allowed.

Therefore, the Spanish authorities have firstly to carry out an environmental assessment and afterwards apply, if it is necessary, Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive.

To summarise, the Commission is not aware of this initiative. The Commission has not received any information from the Spanish government in relation to any project to build these facilities within the Natura 2000 site; therefore, the Commission will request the Spanish authorities to provide information in relation to the aforementioned project.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/737 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/737

---

(2004/C 84 E/0831)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Course financed by means of the Structural Funds

On 11 November 2002 the Naples-based Istituto nazionale di formazione per le imprese culturali launched a course entitled ‘Content Specialist & Designer’ within the PON Asse III misura III 6/D-Codice progetto 5387 discipline. The course is financed by means of the European Social Fund.

The course students (who had to go through a selection procedure) have not received the grant awarded to them (EUR 10 389,14 per student), since the person in charge of the course — a Mr Palladino — has been deemed untrustworthy by the Ministry for State Education, Universities and Scientific Research on account of his previous record. On 30 April 2003 (20 days before the course was due to end) the Ministry decided that co-financing would be suspended and that the training project would be abandoned.

On the basis of the above information, does the Commission not think that, irrespective of any judgment regarding Mr Palladino, the 19 pre-selected women should not be denied their grants or have their course certificates withheld?

Does the Commission not agree that, in accordance with the rules, some kind of protection should be offered to the 19 unemployed course students who, having been duly selected, wished to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them under the Structural Funds?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

After receiving the required information from the Managing Authorities of the national Operational Programme (OP) 1999 IT 161 003, the Commission is now able to report as follows:

| — | The decision on the part of the Ministry for Education, Research and University (MIUR) to suspend the co-financing of project III 6/D-5387 (‘Content Specialist & designer — Specont’) was taken because the project managers (Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo) could not provide adequate financial guarantees. Indeed, from that point of view, Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo were operating illegally, and in fact, 16 students had complained already that they had not received the fellowships to which they were entitled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision on the part of the Ministry for Education, Research and University (MIUR) to suspend the co-financing of project III 6/D-5387 (‘Content Specialist & designer — Specont’) was taken because the project managers (Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo) could not provide adequate financial guarantees. Indeed, from that point of view, Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo were operating illegally, and in fact, 16 students had complained already that they had not received the fellowships to which they were entitled.

| — | Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo have repeatedly appealed the decision of MIUR before the administrative tribunal (TAR) and the Consiglio di Stato. The latter, pending the final judgement by the TAR, has put on hold the suspension decided by the MIUR, which would at least allow the MIUR to pay out advance payments on the fellowships, but the Consiglio di Stato only did so under the condition that Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo are able to provide adequate financial guarantees, which as yet has not happened. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo have repeatedly appealed the decision of MIUR before the administrative tribunal (TAR) and the Consiglio di Stato. The latter, pending the final judgement by the TAR, has put on hold the suspension decided by the MIUR, which would at least allow the MIUR to pay out advance payments on the fellowships, but the Consiglio di Stato only did so under the condition that Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo are able to provide adequate financial guarantees, which as yet has not happened.

| — | The MIUR, as Managing Authority of the OP in question, can not act in substitution of the project managers — that is, award the advances on the fellowships- unless explicitly authorized to do so by the TAR (or following the appointment of an ad-hoc administrator), which in either case could only happen after the final judgement by the TAR itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

The MIUR, as Managing Authority of the OP in question, can not act in substitution of the project managers — that is, award the advances on the fellowships- unless explicitly authorized to do so by the TAR (or following the appointment of an ad-hoc administrator), which in either case could only happen after the final judgement by the TAR itself.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/738 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/738

---

(2004/C 84 E/0832)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3574/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   European Agreement on the transmission of applications for Legal Aid

What problems has the Commission uncovered as a result of Monaco not being a signatory to the 1977 Strasbourg Agreement on the transfer of Legal Aid applications? Will the Commission put pressure on Monaco to sign the Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Monaco is not a member of the Council of Europe, but has applied to join, and is not indeed a party to the 1977 Agreement. It is not for the Commission to put pressure on Monaco.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/738 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/738

---

(2004/C 84 E/0833)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Standardisation of national identity documents

Recently, the United Kingdom Home Secretary David Blunkett announced plans for the introduction of national identity cards with the setting up of a national biometric database which will include unique iris and fingerprint data, incorporating smartchip technology into the cards. The setting up of this system in the United Kingdom is expected to take course over the next five years.

Are there plans to develop similar database in other EU Member States? Given that EU citizens can travel freely on national identity cards even outside the Schengen area, what plans are there to standarize these documents throughout the EU? For instance, allowing the information to be readable by machine and recorded on the card in addition to the issuing authorities official language also in an international language, such as English and French, in order to facilitate their usage as EU-wide travel documents and enable ready recognition by the immigration and police authority outside of the citizens' Member State of origin?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

At European level, the Thessaloniki European Council (19/20 June 2003) called for a coherent approach in the Union on biometric identifiers or biometric data which would result in harmonised solutions for documents for third country nationals, Union citizens' passports and information systems (VIS and SIS II), and invited the Commission ‘to prepare the appropriate proposals, starting with the visa’.

As a first step, the Commission presented in September 2003 two proposals (1) on the integration of two biometrie identifiers, the facial image and two fingerprints, into the uniform format for visa and the residence permit for third country nationals.

As a second stage, the Commission is considering the feasibility of a proposal on the harmonisation of the security features of the European Passport including biometrics. Such an eventual proposal would relate only to provisions which improve the security of the passport by harmonising, and rendering legally binding, common security features which are currently set out in a non-binding Resolution of the Representatives of Member States meeting within the Council. Furthermore, biometrie identifiers would be integrated. The exercise to be undertaken would not go beyond what is required for security reasons and for the control of citizens crossing the external borders; a new harmonisation of the cover of the European passport is not at all foreseen.

For the time being, apart from the above mentioned initiatives, the Commission does not intend to present further proposals on the identity card or a European database related to the individual biometrie data of Union citizens.

Initiatives in view of setting up such a database for national citizens fall under the competence of Member States.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 558 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/739 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/739

---

(2004/C 84 E/0834)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1057/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and secured funding under the Life III programme, the Commission stated that one proposal had been submitted but that the results of the assessment would be available in September 2003.

Can the Commission now say whether the project submitted was actually funded and, if not, why it was not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the proposal submitted under the LIFE III Programme for 2003 by the municipality of Prato (LIFE03 ENV/IT/000360) was not co-financed. The reasons are given in the Commission's letter of 8 September 2003. The proposal failed criterion ‘Coherence and quality’.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/740 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/740

---

(2004/C 84 E/0835)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Global Drug Facility

Is the Commission aware that the Global Drug Facility which has provided 1,9 million patients in 46 countries with free anti-TB drugs in only 26 months, now faces a financial shortfall of USD 27,7 million? What are the present and planned levels of EU support for the GDF? What assurances can the Commission give that the EU is providing sufficient resources to deal with the GDF's present financial shortfall?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the role of the Global Tuberculosis (TB) Drug Facility and its constraints.

As regards tuberculosis in developing countries, the Commission developed in 2000 a broad and strategic approach towards confronting human immuno deificiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis. The consultations around the High Level Round Table held in September 2000 led to the Programme for Action: Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a coherent Community response for 2001-2006 (1). The Communication's groundbreaking strategy builds on the experience of a comprehensive approach, the principle of country-led development process — ownership — and the interrelationship of health and poverty and its implications for macroeconomic policy and development. It incorporates the crucial global elements of partnerships in development, trade and research. Within this policy framework, the Commission uses a number of instruments in the fight against tuberculosis in developing countries: national and regional indicative programmes through programme, sector or budget support; emergency interventions by the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO); research programmes by the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD); the thematic budget line to fight poverty-related diseases and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) co-financing budget lines. Altogether, the various development, humanitarian and research EC programmed support to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1 200 million (annual average of EUR 300 million) for the period 2003-2006. This represents a four-fold increase from the annual average of EUR 73 million in the previous 1994-2001 period.

Regarding the request for the Community to increase the support to the Global Drug Facility (GDF), the Commission has to consider many competing demands. The Commission is at present discussing the content of the Strategic Partnership with the World Health Organisation, which includes the priority area of communicable diseases where issues related to the GDF could be considered.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 96 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/741 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/741

---

(2004/C 84 E/0836)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3840/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Race Directive (2000/43/EC)

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government over its failure to implement the equal treatment between persons without racial and ethnic discrimination in employment and the social sector — Directive 2000/43/EC (1), which should have been implemented in Ireland by 19 July 2003? What has been the Government's response? What action is the Commission taking or proposing to take to ensure that all people living in Ireland enjoy the full protection of this legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Member States had to transpose Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin by 19 July 2003 at the latest.

Ireland has not formally notified to the Commission its transposition of Directive 2000/43/EC. Ireland has informed the Commission that technical amendments to its Employment Equality Act and Equal Status Act are necessary to ensure full compliance with the anti-discrimination Directives. The Irish authorities sent a copy of the proposed Equality Bill to the Commission on 16 January 2004 and its progress and entry into force depends upon the Irish Parliamentary timetable.

The Commission is committed to its role as guardian of the Treaties, and has already formally started infringement proceedings against Ireland (and a number of other Member States) over its failure to notify its implementation measures for Directive 2000/43/EC (by the deadline of 19 July 2003).

---

(1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/741 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/741

---

(2004/C 84 E/0837)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3870/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Ecological volume of the river Júcar and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

The gauge readings for the volume of the river Júcar at Cullera (the last gauge before the river reaches its mouth), which have been taken every day from 1 January 1995 until 24 November 2003 by the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation, give an average of 80,4 hm3 per year (minimum 25,1 hm3 in 1999 and maximum 175,3 hm3 in 1997). The Júcar-Vinalopó canal which the Commission is supposed to be funding provides for a water transfer of 80 hm3 per year, a figure which is totally unviable for a river as exhausted as the Júcar. It should be remembered that its total ‘natural contribution’ is officially of the order of 1 600 hm3 per year, barely 5 % of which reaches the sea at present. And it is precisely the average of what reaches the sea that is supposed to be going to be transferred. On certain days, the gauge readings are effectively zero, which means that there is either no water passing or the levels are so low that the flow meter does not register them (i.e. a few litres per second). After this gauge, the river has no further tributaries other than a few irrigation drains, of no significance, because most of these irrigation drains run into the sea elsewhere. In the natural year 2002, the Júcar registered no contribution at all at its mouth on 219 days (i.e. 60 % of the year), which means that it ceased to flow out at Cullera. It should be noted that both the Júcar Basin Hydrological Plan and the National Hydrological Plan assign the total remaining resources of the Júcar in Tous to various uses or reserves for extraction. This explains the tiny ecological water flow between Tous and Antella, and the absence of any ecological water flow from Antella onwards: the planning administration was aware that it had assigned the river's entire resources to various users, and was therefore unable legally to establish an ecological water flow, since there were no resources to do so.

How does the Commission intend to apply the principle of ‘no deterioration’, and demand a minimum ecological water flow, in accordance with Framework Water Directive 2000/60/EC (1) under these conditions, considering, furthermore, that the middle and lower reaches of the Júcar are a Site of Community Interest under Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2)?

And how can the Commission claim that this water transfer is ecologically viable, when it is obvious that for half of most years the river cannot supply the water transfer even if its own flow were completely eliminated, and taking account of the fact that the envisaged savings in traditional agriculture are utterly implausible and would be to the detriment of the Albufera Natural Park?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the extremely low flows in the lower reaches of the Júcar river.

The proposed transfer of water from the Júcar to the Vinalopó is based on the assumption that significant savings of water use will be made in the upper reaches of the Júcar as a result of improvements to be made to the irrigation systems in the region. The water which is ‘saved’ as a result of these improvements in efficiency will be transferred to the Vinalopó. Given that the water which is planned to be transferred will become available as a result of savings in current water use, the Commission does not believe there will be any deterioration in the status of the Júcar as a result of the proposed transfer.

The Hydrological Plan of the Júcar river watershed also considers the improvement of the traditional irrigation systems deserved by the ‘Acequia Real del Jucar’, which may result in new ‘saved’ resources available for the lower reaches of the river.

With regard to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (3), the requirement to achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2015 will apply to the river Júcar in the same way that it applies to all bodies of surface water in the EU. Similarly, the requirements of the Habitats Directive (4) must also be respected.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 192, 20.7.2002.

(4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/742 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/742

---

(2004/C 84 E/0838)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3924/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Seaworthiness of the Geroi Sevastopolya

The Russian single-hulled vessel, the Geroi Sevastopolya, has set sail from the Latvian port of Ventspils with 55 000 tonnes of fuel similar to the kind the Prestige was carrying. According to information published in the media, the 24-year-old tanker is not in the best condition for sailing, obliging the Commission to send inspectors to Latvia, as a preventative measure, to examine its state of repair.

Given the current sensitivity in Europe over maritime safety and the damage to the marine environment:

| — | Can the Commission state what kind of inspections the Geroi Sevastopolya was subject to? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can the Commission state what kind of inspections the Geroi Sevastopolya was subject to?

| — | Can the Commission confirm that the vessel was transporting 55 000 tonnes of fuel similar to that aboard the Prestige? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can the Commission confirm that the vessel was transporting 55 000 tonnes of fuel similar to that aboard the Prestige?

| — | Does the Commission not consider that the three Baltic acceding countries should begin to bring their legislation on maritime safety in line with that in force in the EU earlier than 1 May 2004? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not consider that the three Baltic acceding countries should begin to bring their legislation on maritime safety in line with that in force in the EU earlier than 1 May 2004?

| — | Can the Commission provide information about the differences in legislation between the accession countries and the present Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can the Commission provide information about the differences in legislation between the accession countries and the present Member States?

| — | Can the Commission provide information about Maltese and Cypriot legislation regarding the registration of vessels and state whether those countries' laws meet Community standards? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can the Commission provide information about Maltese and Cypriot legislation regarding the registration of vessels and state whether those countries' laws meet Community standards?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Erika and Prestige accidents highlighted the disastrous consequences that major fuel oil spills have for the environment and for coastal economies. Against this background, the Commission's attention was drawn to the case of the Russian single-hulled tanker Geroi Sevastopolya, which was due to leave the Latvian port of Ventspils bound for Singapore, carrying around 50 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil along the coasts of Europe on its way.

At the Commission's initiative, a team of inspectors from several EU countries, coordinated by the European Maritime Safety Agency, inspected the vessel before it set sail from Ventspils. The inspectors found no grounds warranting detention of the vessel by the Latvian authorities.

It should be added that the Commission reacted very swiftly following the Prestige accident, its first proposals being designed precisely to prohibit heavy fuel oil being carried in such vessels. These measures were adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, and since 21 October 2003 no single-hulled oil tanker carrying heavy fuel oil has been allowed to enter or leave an EU port.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that it is important that these measures be applied early by all the accession States, and made this point to the Ministers at the Transport Council of 5 December 2003, inviting them to the necessary steps as quickly as possible to stop allowing single-hulled vessels carrying heavy fuel oil into their ports.

As for differences in legislation between the accession countries and the current Member States, the framework legislation of the accession States is in place and it is in line with the Community acquis. However, the accession countries still need to finalise their adoption of the most recent measures, such as the ‘Erika’ I and II packages.

With more specific regard to Malta and Cyprus, the regulatory framework in these countries regarding flags is, as indicated above, not yet fully in line with the Community acquis. However, the Maltese and Cypriot flags have undertaken to step up their efforts to be removed as soon as possible from the blacklist of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. In accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty, as of 1 May 2004 the Commission will ensure that these States apply Community law properly.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/744 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/744

---

(2004/C 84 E/0839)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3948/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Moves by the USA or other countries to make EU Member States comply with their wishes by rewarding or penalising European companies depending on the Member State in which the company is based

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that, in awarding reconstruction or investment contracts in Iraq, a state occupied by US armed forces, the USA is still making a distinction between companies based in EU Member States that supported the American point of view and the American war effort in 2003 and companies based in EU Member States that did not support this war, and that the USA has announced that it will continue to do so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that, in awarding reconstruction or investment contracts in Iraq, a state occupied by US armed forces, the USA is still making a distinction between companies based in EU Member States that supported the American point of view and the American war effort in 2003 and companies based in EU Member States that did not support this war, and that the USA has announced that it will continue to do so?

| 2. | Does the Commission feel that this signal from the Americans is designed to emphasise that the US Administration has never felt constrained by Europe or the UN when deciding what it will do in Iraq and that, in the future, it will pay little or no attention to the views of others? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission feel that this signal from the Americans is designed to emphasise that the US Administration has never felt constrained by Europe or the UN when deciding what it will do in Iraq and that, in the future, it will pay little or no attention to the views of others?

| 3. | Have there been situations in the past and in other areas where the US has treated companies from different EU Member States differently? If so, where and when has this happened? How were these distinctions justified? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Have there been situations in the past and in other areas where the US has treated companies from different EU Member States differently? If so, where and when has this happened? How were these distinctions justified?

| 4. | Are there states other than the USA that treat companies from different EU Member States differently? If so, where and when has this happened? How were these distinctions justified? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are there states other than the USA that treat companies from different EU Member States differently? If so, where and when has this happened? How were these distinctions justified?

| 5. | Does the Commission accept that treating companies differently by rewarding those in obedient states is a suitable way of making individual EU Member States agree as far as possible with the political views of third countries or of creating a situation in which the EU can reach a common position only when this position corresponds with the priorities of a powerful state outside the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission accept that treating companies differently by rewarding those in obedient states is a suitable way of making individual EU Member States agree as far as possible with the political views of third countries or of creating a situation in which the EU can reach a common position only when this position corresponds with the priorities of a powerful state outside the EU?

| 6. | If the Commission finds the scenario outlined in question 5 unacceptable, in what way does it intend to put a stop to this as soon as possible? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the Commission finds the scenario outlined in question 5 unacceptable, in what way does it intend to put a stop to this as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

| 1. | The ‘Determination and Findings’ issued by the United States (US) Department of Defense on 5 December 2003 under the signature of Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz applies to 26 prime contracts to be awarded by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq or by the Department of Defense on behalf of the CPA. These contracts will be funded from USD 18,6 billion committed to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) by the US Government. Article 4 of the ‘Determination and Findings’ states that: | It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit prime contracts to companies from these countries. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The ‘Determination and Findings’ issued by the United States (US) Department of Defense on 5 December 2003 under the signature of Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz applies to 26 prime contracts to be awarded by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq or by the Department of Defense on behalf of the CPA. These contracts will be funded from USD 18,6 billion committed to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) by the US Government. Article 4 of the ‘Determination and Findings’ states that:

It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit prime contracts to companies from these countries.

The document goes on to list those countries eligible to compete for these contracts. Current Member States and Acceding Countries listed as eligible are the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Those not listed as eligible are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden. US officials have stressed that these eligibility criteria apply only to the primary contractors and will not be enforced on sub-contractors.

| 2. | Despite the suggestion in the ‘Determination and Findings’ that these criteria have been applied as result of security concerns, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has made clear that there is a political element to the decision. Speaking in a press conference in Washington on 16 December 2003, Mr Rumsfeld stated that ‘the decision was to preserve for those people who made the Iraqi people's liberation possible access to the prime contracts’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Despite the suggestion in the ‘Determination and Findings’ that these criteria have been applied as result of security concerns, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has made clear that there is a political element to the decision. Speaking in a press conference in Washington on 16 December 2003, Mr Rumsfeld stated that ‘the decision was to preserve for those people who made the Iraqi people's liberation possible access to the prime contracts’.

| 3. | There have been previous occasions when the US has applied differentiated approaches to Member States in areas of US Government Procurement. For example in 1993 and as a result of the failure of negotiations to liberalise purchases of telecom equipment, the US decided to impose sanctions against certain Member States. The sanctions bar suppliers from a selected group of Member States from bidding for some US Federal Government contracts. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There have been previous occasions when the US has applied differentiated approaches to Member States in areas of US Government Procurement. For example in 1993 and as a result of the failure of negotiations to liberalise purchases of telecom equipment, the US decided to impose sanctions against certain Member States. The sanctions bar suppliers from a selected group of Member States from bidding for some US Federal Government contracts.

| 4. | Although it could not be excluded a priori, it is unusual to see a third country applying limitations to bidders from a selected group of Member States for trade or economic reasons. Such a measure is often inefficient considering that Union suppliers often own or control subsidiaries or branches in another Member State from which it would be easy to bid and elude the measure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Although it could not be excluded a priori, it is unusual to see a third country applying limitations to bidders from a selected group of Member States for trade or economic reasons. Such a measure is often inefficient considering that Union suppliers often own or control subsidiaries or branches in another Member State from which it would be easy to bid and elude the measure.

| 5. and 6. | This would, in any case, hardly be the first example of a nation using financial and economic levers to pursue its foreign policy objectives. However, as made clear in its press statement of 11 December 2003 (1), the Commission will monitor procedures relating to the awarding of contracts to ensure that the United States honours the commitments it undertook under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

5. and 6.

This would, in any case, hardly be the first example of a nation using financial and economic levers to pursue its foreign policy objectives. However, as made clear in its press statement of 11 December 2003 (1), the Commission will monitor procedures relating to the awarding of contracts to ensure that the United States honours the commitments it undertook under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement.

---

(1)  IP/03/1713.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/745 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/745

---

(2004/C 84 E/0840)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3980/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Yukos affair

On 19 June 2003, Mr Pichugin, former head of security at Yukos, was arrested and charged with the attempted murder of Ms Kostina and with arranging the murder of Mr and Mrs Gorin. The Basmannyi Court confirmed his arrest and the Moscow Court confirmed this decision, rejecting Mr Pichugin's lawyers' request for bail at RUB 3 million. The investigators refused to state the reasons why they suspect Mr Pichugin although the murderers have already been sentenced. In view of the repeated infringements committed by the Basmannyi Court, Mr Pichugin's lawyers brought a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. In July 2003, Mr Lebedev, a major shareholder in Yukos, was arrested and charged with fraud; he is currently in custody awaiting trial. On 26 October 2003, armed FSB agents boarded the aircraft of the Chief Executive of Yukos, Mr Khodorkovsky, and arrested him on charges of fraud and tax evasion. The Russian judiciary has continually violated the constitutional rights and the right to a fair trial of those involved in this affair. The most serious infringements include the failure to respect the role of lawyers and the principle of confidentiality between lawyer and client, the refusal to hold hearings in public, the denial of the right to effective legal assistance, the use of arbitrary imprisonment, torture and illegal searches, and the biased nature of the trial. In addition, 53 % of the shares in Yukos held by Mr Khodorkovsky were confiscated in order to prevent them from being sold, according to the public prosecutor, although they belonged to a group of foreign investors. In total, 61 % of Yukos's shares have been confiscated, stoking fears that Yukos may be dismantled or nationalised. The political nature of this affair shows it to be a further attack on the process of democratisation and an intensification of the repression of freedom of expression in the Russian Federation.

Does the Commission not feel that the behaviour of the Russian judicial and political authorities are incompatible with the rule of law? What initiatives does the Commission intend to propose to Member States and to take itself, within the extent of its powers, to ensure that the Russian authorities respect the principles in force in a constitutional state and, in particular, to guarantee Mr Pichugin, Mr Lebedev and Mr Khodorkovsky the full exercise of their right to defence, the presumption of innocence and all their fundamental rights? More generally, is the Commission not of the opinion that the fundamental rights of the citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as the rights of Russian or foreign investors, are not guaranteed satisfactorily in today's Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has been closely following recent events in Russia, including the arrest of Mr Khodorkovsky and the seizure of a significant proportion of Yukos shares by the Russian authorities.

The Commission is aware of allegations of the violation of constitutional and due process in this case. It understands that lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Khodorkovsky are currently seeking redress through the Russian legal system and in the European Court of Human Rights. The Commission will follow with great interest the outcome of such legal challenges.

At the Union/Russia Summit on 6 November 2003 and the meeting of the EU/Russia Permanent Partnership Council on 27 April 2004— as well as on the occasion of other political dialogue meetings with the Russian authorities — the Commission has underlined the need for Russia to ensure the fair, nondiscriminatory and proportional application of the law. It has stressed that these principles constitute essential elements of the Union/Russia partnership and that failure to respect them risks undermining the progress made in Russia in the last few years to create a positive environment for the development of trade and investment.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/746 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/746

---

(2004/C 84 E/0841)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4055/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Renewable energy

What proportion of the overall TEN-Ε budget goes to renewable energies, and how much of this goes to Scotland in line with project 350 in Annex III of Decision No 1229/2003/EC (1) of the European Parliament and Council of 26 June 2003 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/EC (2)?

Which Member States are the worst and best performers in terms of developing renewable energy? What proportion of EU energy output ought ideally to come from renewables in order to meet the Kyoto targets, and what proportion of that output could potentially come from Scotland in particular? Can such statistics be broken down into different sources of renewable energy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Before June 2003, only one project relating to the connection of wind power to the electricity transmission grid had been identified under the Guidelines for trans-European energy networks (TEN-Energy). This project, which concerned the strenthening and development of connections in the North-East and the West of Spain, was supported under the TEN programme (with a financial support of EUR 0,2 million decided by the Commission in 1999).

With the June 2003 revision of the TEN-Energy Guidelines, several similar projects, including one concerning similar connections in Scotland and England, have been identified and are now eligible to TEN financial support. These projects may benefit from TEN financial support provided that a related application is submitted to the Commission and that such application is evaluated favorably and selected, following the annual TEN financial support procedure. The application form for 2004 will be circulated in the coming weeks by the Commission.

In order to support market development and to trigger the transition towards a ‘sustainable and green Europe’ in terms of energy, the Union has set itself ambitious targets:

| — | An overall target of increasing the share of renewable energy in the total gross inland consumption from 6 % (late nineties) to 12 % in 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

An overall target of increasing the share of renewable energy in the total gross inland consumption from 6 % (late nineties) to 12 % in 2010.

| — | A target of 22 % of electricity consumption in 2010 to be generated by renewable energy, adopted in 2003 including national targets. |
| --- | --- |

—

A target of 22 % of electricity consumption in 2010 to be generated by renewable energy, adopted in 2003 including national targets.

| — | A specific target of 5,75 % of consumption of motor vehicle fuel in 2010 to be of biomass origin, adopted in 2002 with an obligation by Member States to set individual targets in 2004 for their gradual phasing in bio-fuels towards 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

A specific target of 5,75 % of consumption of motor vehicle fuel in 2010 to be of biomass origin, adopted in 2002 with an obligation by Member States to set individual targets in 2004 for their gradual phasing in bio-fuels towards 2010.

The Commission will present to the Council and to the Parliament a complete report on the situation in the different Member States as far as green electricity is concerned, before summer 2004.

This penetration of renewable energies, requiring additional and reinforced policy action, could contribute to an annual saving of about 190 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (C02) by 2010 (compared to the trend rate of increase in renewable energy, 1995-2000), around half of what is needed to fulfil the Kyoto target.

There is an important potential for renewable energy sources in the heating sector, especially in the biomass area and a lack of a quantified target in this sector for Scotland. Electricity produced from renewable energy sources, mainly hydro, now make up around 13 % of supply in Scotland and the Scottish Executive has set up a target of 18 % by 2010 under the framework of the ‘Renewables Obligation Order’. The Executive is currently considering a target of 40 % of electricity production from renewables for 2020.

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 11.

(2)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 147.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/747 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/747

---

(2004/C 84 E/0842)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4056/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the environmental acquis

In its Fourth Annual Survey on the implementation and enforcement of Community environment law, the Commission's scoreboard on implementation of the acquis demonstrates that the UK was particularly weak in adopting national measures to transpose directives within the appropriate deadlines. Can the Commission provide a comparative analysis in relation to both the UK and the rest of the EU on the success or failure of the Scottish Executive specifically to implement the environmental acquis in those areas over which it has competence?

Furthermore, given that the Fourth Annual Survey has highlighted continued problems with regard to implementation of the environmental acquis across the EU, what action is the Commission taking to improve implementation levels, and how successful is such action so far? What additional powers would the Commission like to have to enforce legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The record of the United Kingdom in transposing Community environmental legislation is not significantly different than for the other Member States. The Honourable Member probably refers to the table and the graph on page 44 of the Fourth Annual Survey, according to which there were 21 cases for noncommunication open against the United Kingdom in comparison with 97 for all Member States (i.e. 21,6 % of all cases for the United Kingdom) by 31 December 2002.

According to the latest figures for 31 December 2003, the picture is rather different. There are currently only five infringement cases for non-communication open against the United Kingdom in comparison with 79 for all Member States (i.e. 6,3 % of all cases for the United Kingdom, which puts it within the average for all Member States). An important factor in this change in statistics is the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-30/01, according to which there is no requirement to transpose some internal market directives with ancillary environmental objectives into the legislation for the territory of Gibraltar. As a consequence, an investigation of several non-communication cases against the United Kingdom could have been terminated.

It is not possible to say to what extent the transposition difficulties are caused by the Scottish Executive. The Commission investigates infringements by the Member States, irrespective of their regional distribution. It is for the Member States to decide on means for transposing the directives, as well as on the number of national legislative acts involved in transposition.

The Commission is undertaking numerous steps to support better implementation and enforcement of Community environmental legislation, in accordance with Commission Communication (1) of 11 December 2002 on the better monitoring of the application of community law. This is done not only through complaint and infringement procedures, but also through a number of proactive measures, ‘inter alia’ through package meetings with the Member State authorities, through the provision of the best examples in implementation, through the dissemination of guidelines on implementation, by publishing reports on implementation (like the Fourth Annual Survey), through early warning about the new Community directives following their adoption and prior to the expiry of the transposition deadline.

The Honourable Member is also concerned whether additional powers are needed by the Commission for the enforcement of Community environmental legislation. It is the Commission's view that its powers established by the EC Treaty to monitor and enforce compliance with Community environmental legislation are adequate.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 725 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/748 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/748

---

(2004/C 84 E/0843)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4066/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Biometric passports

Among the measures included by the Commission for 2004 in its work programme (1) is a proposal for a regulation to define the characteristics of the information system for visas.

Meanwhile, as of 5 January 2004 all citizens of certain countries wishing to enter the US have to pass through a scanner identifying a set of biometric characteristics which are used to exercise checks on their stay there. The US will start issuing biometrie passports from next year.

Biometrie technology offers a number of different options: it can be applied to the face, the hands, and even the eyes. The technologies concerned are, however, still very expensive, and cannot at present be considered completely reliable.

What is the Commission's time-frame for the EU-wide introduction of passports using biometrie technology? Does it consider their introduction to be viable in the medium term?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

At European level, in order to enhance the level of security in the area of freedom, security and justice, the Thessaloniki European Council (19/20 June 2003) called for ‘a coherent approach in the EU on biometric identifiers or biometric data which would result in harmonised solutions for documents for third country nationals, EU citizens’ passports and information systems (VIS and SIS II)', and invited the Commission ‘to prepare the appropriate proposals, starting with the visa’.

As a first step, the Commission presented in September 2003 two proposals (2) on the integration of two biometrie identifiers, the facial image and two fingerprints, into the uniform format for visa and the residence permit for third country nationals.

In a second step, the Commission will soon present a proposal on the harmonisation of the security features of the European Passport including biometrics. This proposal will only relate to provisions which improve the security of the passport by harmonising, and rendering legally binding, common security features, which are currently set out in a non-binding Resolution of the Representatives of Member States meeting within the Council. Furthermore, biometrics shall be integrated. The exercise to be undertaken should not go beyond what is required for security reasons and the control of citizens crossing the external borders.

The proposals on visa and residence permits for third country nationals (2) set out the legislative framework for the integration of biometrie identifiers in such documents. The development of practical implementation measures as regards the technical specifications for the chosen biometrie identifiers and their rendering secure is the task of the Committee created by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 on a uniform format for visas (3). The implementation delay, which will be two years for the facial image and three years for the fingerprints, can only start when those technical specifications have been adopted by the Commission.

In relation to the passport, a similar system will be proposed in the above-mentioned proposal for a Regulation.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 645 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 558 final.

(3)  OJ L 164, 14.7.1995.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/749 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/749

---

(2004/C 84 E/0844)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4068/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Unlawful toll demanded for the Turin-Milan motorway

As a result of the work being carried out on a new high-speed rail link, around 100 kilometres of the 123-kilometre-long Turin to Milan motorway are subject to restrictions and diversions, squeezed between dangerous concrete lane separators and completely devoid of any emergency lanes. This clearly entails serious risks for the safety of its users.

In these circumstances, since it is evident that, in many respects, the Turin-Milan section no longer exhibits the characteristics of a motorway, does the Commission not view as unlawful the concessionary company's demand for payment of a toll and its refusal to at least make a reduction in that toll for Italian and European drivers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

It is a matter of fact that motorways are sometimes temporarily affected by construction works restricting their use. However, in these cases, as well as in the one the Honourable Member mentions, the motorway does not cease to be a motorway in accordance with the provisions of the Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1). The Directive does not cover private cars. The decision to reduce tolls paid by private cars as suggested in the question is, therefore, a matter for concessionary motorways according to their own commercial policy and the national legal requirements.

---

(1)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/750 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/750

---

(2004/C 84 E/0845)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Trade in wild birds

Is the Commission aware of the legal trade in wild-caught birds in Europe? Between 1997 and 2000 nearly half a million birds, mainly parrots, were imported into Europe.

Would the Commission consider protecting these birds by introducing legislation to ban this, similar to that now valid in the USA? Since the introduction in the USA of the ‘Wild Bird Conservation Act’, poaching has fallen. It is anticipated that European legislation would have the same effect.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is fully aware of legal trade in wild birds and there is already specific Community legislation in place to protect wild birds.

Most of the wild bird species that are in demand in trade (including parrots) are listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is implemented in the EU through Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1). The primary purpose of CITES and of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 is to protect wild species of flora and fauna from unsustainable trade. The aims of CITES are not against all trade in wildlife, but to contribute to the conservation of these species by regulating trade therein, whilst fighting illegal traffic.

Under the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), the United States does not allow the import of CITES-listed birds caught from the wild, except as allowed by certain exemptions under the WBCA. One of the exemptions is for birds from an approved sustainable use management program, but currently there are no approved programs. At the moment, the Commission does not see a need to introduce similar legislation for the reasons mentioned below.

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 lists the endangered species according to their threat status in four annexes (A to D). Annex A concerns the species that need the most protection because they are threatened with extinction. Because of their critical conservation status commercial trade in wild specimens of these species is prohibited — such trade is only allowed for purposes of conservation benefit — e.g. research, education, captive breeding projects etc. However, the bulk of the annexed species are in Annex B. This annex lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but may become so. Commercial trade in these species is strictly regulated.

The above Regulation goes further than CITES in imposing strict controls on the importation of Annex Β species. Under these stricter measures, the importation of certain species can be suspended if it is judged to be unsustainable. There is also a requirement that live animals be transported in a humane manner. In addition, the import of certain species from all countries of origin can be suspended if they are at high risk of mortality during transport or premature mortality in captivity. In fact, this EU legislation which implement CITES is amongst the most comprehensive of its kind in the world.

All wild bird species naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States of the European Union are protected under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) (hereafter ‘Birds Directive’). In order to prevent commercial interests from exerting a possible harmful pressure on exploitation levels, the Directive imposes a general ban on commercialization, with the exception of a small number of species listed in Annex III of the Directive, where commercialization may be permitted if the birds are legally acquired.

With regard to the question of a trade ban for all European wild birds, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the existing prohibition under the above-mentioned Birds Directive. However, in the case of imported birds, the various aspects of the effectiveness of the Community legislation on trade in wildlife and its compliance with the principle of sustainable use of wildlife must be taken into account. The latter principle is considered to be a better solution for conservation of wildlife by many authorities worldwide than a ban on all international trade in birds listed under CITES. It is the Commission's conviction that the CITES Convention offers an effective tool to bring the concept of sustainable use of wildlife into practice. An outright ban, on the other hand, would simply encourage exporting countries to switch to other less sustainable forms of land use and would not be in the best interests of the species concerned. Most probably, it would also encourage smuggling and circumventions because of the absence of a link to the socio-economic aspects embedded in the concept of sustainability.

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/751 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/751

---

(2004/C 84 E/0846)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0023/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Inadequate information to the Commission concerning the Bothnia Line

The Commission has approved the Swedish Government's application to extend the Bothnia Line eastwards, which gave the journey time and operation of the line as ‘compelling reasons’ for exploiting the biggest delta in northern Europe, a classified Natura 2000 area.

Even before the opinion was delivered last spring, the National Rail Administration had economised on extending the line eastwards, thereby invalidating the ‘compelling reasons’ for the project. According to Chef de Cabinet Rolf Annerberg, the Commission has not been provided with this information. The government has authorised the line and the savings. Is the Commission satisfied with the inadequate information provided by the government?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission has not been informed of any changes in the planning of Botniabanan that would invalidate the compelling reasons which justified the positive opinion for the project. It will ask the Swedish authorities about the nature of the changes in the project development referred to. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member about the outcome of the further inquiries.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/752 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/752

---

(2004/C 84 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Landfill and gravel extraction sites

Can the Commission state whether any EU legislation exists that stipulates the distance of landfill and gravel extraction sites from houses, roads and water courses?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

As regards landfills, Annex I.1 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) states that the location of a landfill must take into consideration requirements relating to:

| (a) | the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreational areas, waterways, water bodies and other agricultural or urban sites; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreational areas, waterways, water bodies and other agricultural or urban sites;

| (b) | the existence of groundwater, coastal water or nature protection zones in the area; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the existence of groundwater, coastal water or nature protection zones in the area;

| (c) | the geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area;

| (d) | the risk of flooding, subsidence, landslides or avalanches on the site; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the risk of flooding, subsidence, landslides or avalanches on the site;

| (e) | the protection of the nature or cultural patrimony in the area. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the protection of the nature or cultural patrimony in the area.

The landfill can be authorised only if the characteristics of the site with respect to the above-mentioned requirements, or the corrective measures to be taken, indicate that the landfill does not pose a serious environmental risk. However, the Directive does not stipulate any specific distances from houses, roads or water courses.

As regards gravel extraction, such an activity is governed by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 25 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment (2) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3). Location is one of the criteria to be taken into account in assessing the potential significant effects of extractive activities. Similarly, the Directive does not stipulate any specific distances but relevant requirements may be found in national provisions implementing the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/752 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/752

---

(2004/C 84 E/0848)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0044/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Val Jumela

Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) states that a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation is to be set up under the title ‘Natura 2000’.

Article 4 of the directive sets out the procedure for defining this network: first of all a draft list of sites of Community importance is proposed by the Member States; a list of sites of Community importance (SCI) is subsequently adopted by the Commission on the basis of the proposals; finally, the SCI are classified as special areas of conservation by the Member States.

Article 6 lays down the conservation measures for the special areas of conservation. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 4(5), as soon as a site is placed on the list of sites of Community importance it is subject to the provisions of Article 6.

In the context of the designation procedure referred to above, the Member States take account of the presence in the sites of habitats and species of Community interest mentioned in Annexes I and II to the directive.

The Val Jumela (part of the territory of the Val di Fassa) is the only site where there is still a population of Botrychium simplex, an endemic plant species included in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC.

Can the Commission say whether, on the basis of the criteria applicable for drawing up the list of sites of Community importance, the Val Jumela is to be included in the list of SCIs in the Alpine biogeographic region and, if not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine region was adopted by the Commission on 22 December 2003. This list does not include the area of Val Jumela in the Trento Autonomous Province.

The list of sites adopted by the Commission was based on proposal by the national authorities, and its ability to reach the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, was assessed by the Commission through a process of bio-geographic seminars, in collaboration with the Topic Centre for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity of the European Environment Agency. This process had the active participation of environmental nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), land-owners' organisations and independent experts.

The last bio-geographic seminar for the Alpine region took place in Brussels on 11 and 12 October 2001, and concluded that the site proposed by Italy for the species Botrychium simplex (‘Dolomiti di Brenta’) was the only one in which the species had been signalled.

In April 2003, the Commission was informed by the regional section of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) that the only site for this plant species is actually Val Jumela and, in further exchanges of correspondence, that the indication of the species in the site ‘Dolomiti di Brenta’ was based on an old bibliographic reference but that no plants of this species had been identified in the site for a long time. Unfortunately, this information was received by the Commission only at a time when the assessment of the list for the Alpine region had been finalised, and it was impossible to re-open the discussion on designation of individual sites.

At this time, the main priority for the Commission is to complete the adoption of the lists of sites of Community importance for all bio-geographic regions. That process is expected to be concluded in 2004 for the present 15 Member States. Only after that will the Commission be able to start making changes to the adopted lists on the basis of new proposals by the Member States. In the meantime, Member States can, of course, adopt measures for the protection of this or other species through their national or regional legislation.

The Italian authorities are aware of the exchange of information concerning Botrychium simplex.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/753 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/753

---

(2004/C 84 E/0849)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Conflict over pollution — between the Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) and the people and municipal authorities of Pontevedra

The Celulosas de Pontevedra woodpulp factory (Ence, Galicia) has occupied, for the last forty years and more, under an administrative concession, an area of publicly-owned land on the shore of the Ría de Pontevedra. This land is now effectively part of the built-up area of the municipality of Pontevedra. The factory's presence prevents further urban development between the two coastal municipalities of Pontevedra and Marín. The company, formerly publicly-owned and now privatised, has as its main shareholder the Caixa Galicia bank, which also supplies its chair. Favourably located on the Ria, the Ence factory operates a highly polluting production cycle: the pollution affects both water and air, has given rise to numerous protests from the public, and has for years now been the source of an open conflict between the company and Pontevedra's municipal authorities: both the general public and the municipal council wish to see the factory moved elsewhere. However, Ence, with the support of the Galician regional government, intends to consolidate the factory's presence, and, indeed, aims to obtain ownership of the valuable land that it occupies: on that basis, it would build a paper manufacturing plant which would process part of the woodpulp now produced. Ence is now seeking to enter into partnership with a US enterprise with a worldwide presence, namely the Atlanta-based Georgia Pacific Corporation. This company is well-known for being involved in conflicts over the environment and safety, and has been affected by major accidents (fires, explosions and toxic leaks) leading to the loss of lives and abusive deforestation in third-world countries.

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Celulosas de Pontevedra factory, its polluting impact, its location on publicly-owned urban land, its conflicts with civil society and the municipal authorities of the Ria (especially the Pontevedra council), and the failure of the Galician regional government and the Spanish central government to take the necessary preventive action against the severe damage being caused by this company to the local society and economy?

Has the Commission taken action to prevent this serious damage? Has it taken any steps to institute the necessary surveillance and monitoring to stop the attempts to consolidate the woodpulp factory in its present location by building a new paper manufacturing plant in association with the Georgia Pacific Corporation?

Is the Commission aware that Celulosas de Pontevedra even wishes to end the publicly-owned status of the 430 000 m2 of coastal land on which its factory is located, with the aim of continuing its activities after the expiry of its administrative concession?

Will the Commission support the Pontevedra municipal council in its campaign to defend the publicly-owned status of the land occupied by the factory and have the factory moved elsewhere, in a context of job preservation and implementation of all the measures required to put an end to the present unacceptable pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have the necessary elements to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the installation in question meets the conditions established in the relevant Community legislation.

Questions concerning the possible occupation of the new site are not within the competence of the Community. A proposal to build a new paper manufacturing plant, or to change or extend an existing one, would require an environmental impact assessment under the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) if the plant was likely to have significant effects on the environment. This would require the public to be consulted and the competent authority to consider their views and the environmental effects. If of a mind to approve the application, the competent authority could attach any conditions which might be required, for example, to provide mitigation of those effects.

Concerning the possible harmful effects of the facilities one must take into account that the installation in question falls within the scope of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (3) (see activity 6,1 of Annex I). The Directive aims at a high overall level of environmental protection, by means of prevention and reduction of emissions to air, water and land, avoidance or reduction of waste production, energy efficiency, accident prevention and, upon cessation of activities, return of the site to a satisfactory state.

The plant has apparently been in operation for more than forty years and must, therefore, be considered as an ‘existing installation’ in the meaning of the Directive (see Article 2, point 4). According to Article 5 of the Directive, the competent authorities have to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that such an installation operates in full compliance with the provisions of the Directive by 30 October 2007 at the latest.

For this purpose, the competent authority has to issue an integrated permit (or, if appropriate, to reconsider and update an existing permit) containing emission limit values, equivalent parameters or technical measures based on best available techniques, taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions (see Article 9(4) of the Directive).

For the definition of best available techniques, the competent authority can base its requirements on a reference document for best available techniques (BREF) in pulp and paper manufacturing. This document is accessible on the web site: (http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FAbout.htm).

Data on the most relevant pollutants emitted by the installation are publicly accessible on the website: www.eper.cec.eu.int as of 23 February 2004.

With the aim of maintaining the air quality where it is good and improving it in other cases, Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (4) requires Member States to assess the air quality throughout its territory. Limit and target values, to be met by a defined attainment data (2005 to 2010), are set by accompanying Daughter Directives relating to air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10) and lead (5) or carbon monoxide and benzene (6). Industrial installations are of course potential sources for some of those components. Member States are obliged to report annually to the Commission the zones and agglomerations where any limit values plus a defined margin of tolerance (which is decreasing annually to become zero by the attainment date), are exceeded. In such zones Member States are obliged to draw up plans and programmes to demonstrate by which measures the limit values can be achieved. Up to now the Commission did not receive such plans or programmes from Spain relating to the suggested problem area around the industrial plant in question.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(5)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(6)  OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/755 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/755

---

(2004/C 84 E/0850)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia) arising from the ban on building merchant vessels: action of the Commission and the Spanish government

The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia), arising from the ban on building merchant vessels which has affected it since 1988 and the dearth of orders for offshore rigs, in the building of which it was obliged to specialise under its previous name of Astano, with the consequent loss of thousands of jobs, once again points up the need for action on this problem from the Commission and the Spanish state, both of which are guilty of negligence on an issue that is crucial for the economy of the Ferrol area and of Galicia.

Can the Commission provide information on the present state of affairs? Has the Spanish government submitted the necessary request to enable the shipyard to recommence building merchant vessels? What is the Commission's position? What, at all events, needs to be done to enable this shipyard to build such vessels, as it did in the past when it had a worldwide reputation in the field?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

As the Commission recently replied to the Honourable Member in its answer to written question E-3828/03 (1), the Commission, in 1997, decided that Fene (ex-Astano) should be closed for shipbuilding in order to ensure the production restriction on public Spanish shipbuilding. This was, therefore, a counterpart for the approved restructuring aid (2) authorised in 1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation (EC) 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring (3), on which the Commission decision mentioned above was based, that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

The Commission is currently examining the issue of allowing Fene to restart shipbuilding and is therefore not able to prejudge what its final position will be.

The Commission is actively pursuing a policy to defend EU shipbuilding from unfair international competition, by a World Trade Organisation (WTO) action against South Korea and by having proposed a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding. Shipyards in all Member States, including Spain, may benefit from this approach specifically designed for this industry.

---

(1)  See page 104.

(2)  OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

(3)  OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/756 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/756

---

(2004/C 84 E/0851)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Compliance with the Kyoto protocol by the Spanish state

The Commissioner responsible for the environment, Mrs Margot Wallström, recently announced that the EU will not be able to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol, stating that the Union member with the worst record is the Spanish state, which is considered unlikely to meet the 33,3 % target by 2010.

Given that the Commissioner had written to all the national governments urging them to step up their efforts to reach the target, can the Commission explain this failure of the Spanish state to comply? What measures has the Spanish government taken to adjust to the proposed objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The recent Commission progress report on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (1) shows that the policies and measures taken in the Member States so far will not be enough to meet their Kyoto emission targets. A letter has been sent to Member States proposing that the additional measures that are needed to meet the EU's Kyoto targets be identified in the course of 2004, underlining the necessity for Member States to keep the timeline for implementation of the EU emission trading Directive (2), to update national policies and measures within the next 12-18 months, and to include more substantive information on their projections for using the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to supplement domestic action.

Spanish emissions were 32 % above 1990 levels in 2001, while its 2008-2012 commitment is to an increase of no more than 15 %.

Since the publication of the Commission's report, Spain has adopted a climate change action plan consisting of a package of 440 greenhouse gas reduction measures. The measures proposed include fiscal incentives for companies that generate or use clean energies, a shift from coal to gas-fired electricity generation, the promotion of biofuels, the promotion of renovation of private vehicles, installation of solar energy in public buildings and the promotion of public transport in companies and public administrations.

A Decision for a monitoring the mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol was formally adopted by Council on 26 January 2004. This Decision requires Member States to notify national programmes to the Commission within three months of their adoption. In accordance with this Decision, the Commission will assess the progress of the Community and its Member States towards fulfilling their commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol as set out in Decision 2002/358/EC later in 2004. A report compiled on the basis of this assessment will be submitted to the Parliament and to the Council.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 735 final.

(2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/757 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/757

---

(2004/C 84 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

To date, not a single one of the 15 current Member States nor any of the ten future Member States of the European Union has signed the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families, which was adopted at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 2003.

What is the Commission position on the Convention referred to above?

| 1. | To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

| 2. | On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

| 3. | From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention by a Member State of the Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention by a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Member States are [probably] better placed than the Commission to explain their reasons for not ratifying the United Nations International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

Nevertheless, one of the main obstacles to ratification seems to be that the Convention recognises rights in respect of all migrant workers regardless of whether they are in the host country legally or illegally.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the rights listed in the Convention are also guaranteed at EU level for citizens and third-country nationals alike in other instruments (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, European Convention on Human Rights). However, the wide range of provisions guaranteeing the same rights leads to varying interpretations which could prove damaging to legal certainty for individuals.

Because of the complexity of the provisions of this Convention, the Commission intends to launch a study on the points in common with — and those on which it differs from — common immigration policy as it has developed at EU level since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/758 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/758

---

(2004/C 84 E/0853)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   The Spanish National Hydrological Plan dam on the River Narla in Lugo (Galicia) a scheduled Site of Community Importance within the Natura 2000 network

The Spanish National Hydrological Plan includes a dam on the River Narla at Lugo in Galicia, supposedly intended to supply water to the Lugo Municipal area and also to the municipalities of Outeiro de Rei and Rábade.

This scheme has led to various political and social organisations taking the initiative of drawing up proposals for better, more ecological and more appropriate solutions to the problem.

The Association for the Ecological Defence of Galicia (ADEGA) believes the dam to be unnecessary and harmful, and has submitted its claims to the Spanish Environment Ministry's Directorate-General for Quality and Environmental Assessment. ADEGA claims, in particular that (a) the area affected by the dammed water is a Site of Community importance in accordance with the terms of Annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) — and is included in the Natura 2000 network, covering an area allocated both upstream and downstream of the rive Minho; (b) it has not been proven that there is a serious need that the planned infrastructure should take precedence over the objectives of the Natura 2000 network; (c) that the waters of the River Minho, Galicia's largest, would — if they were, as they need to be appropriately cleaned up — are the most appropriate source for supplying Lugo and the other municipalities; (d) the environmental impact study submitted does not consider any alternative to the Narla dam with regard to supplying Lugo; (e) the reasons underpinning the designation of the area as a place of Site of Community importance included in Natura 2000 have been ignored or treated with contempt. The BNG has made similar proposals, voiced by its representatives on the Lugo City Council.

Is the Commission aware of this scheme? Does it know that in the claims submitted to the Spanish Ministry by ADEGA, the scheme is viewed as incompatible, — generally, permanently, irreversibly and irredeemably — with any respect for the biodiversity and conservation features of the place of Community interest, and that ADEGA has requested that the site be declared a biosphere reserve? Is the Commission aware that there are requests that the dam scheme be abandoned, and the earmarked investment be used to double the Lugo city supply network from the River Minho? Is the Commission prepared to ensure that this scheme respects Community law? Will the Commission be approaching the Spanish, Galician and Lugo provincial and municipal authorities in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission has not received any information on the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

Irrespective of whether or not the Commission receives any document concerning the project of this dam in the river Narla, European environmental legislation and especially the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EC) (2), the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) (3) and the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 85/337/CEE) (4) must be respected. In particular, if the area affected by the dammed water is a Site of Community interest, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive has to be fulfilled. Moreover, Directive 85/337/CEE aims to ensure that projects belonging to certain types that have significant effects on the environment must, as a rule, be subjected to an environmental impact assessment.

The Commission will request further information from the Spanish Authorities in order to ensure that European environmental legislation is properly applied.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(4)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/759 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/759

---

(2004/C 84 E/0854)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Waste water treatment in Ireland

What response, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in relation to the final written warning it sent to the Irish Government in July (IP/03/1108) regarding the treatment of urban waste water? What is the Commission's attitude to the Irish Government's response and what action is it now taking or proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 7 October 2002 with regard to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1). In 2003, Ireland sent two responses to this Reasoned Opinion. These responses are still under consideration.

---

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/759 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/759

---

(2004/C 84 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0080/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Rheumatism and Biomed programme

According to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), more than 50 % of Europe's population suffer, at one time or another, from an acute or chronic rheumatic disease. Has the Commission given consideration to including the combating of rheumatic diseases as a theme under the Biomed programme and if so, what conclusions has it come to?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission's commitment in rheumatic diseases research is evident in eight on-going projects related to rheumatic diseases, financed with an EU financial contribution of more than EUR 11 million under the 5th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development. The results of these projects are expected from 2004 onwards.

In the 6th Framework Programme (FP) health related research is mainly financed under priority one ‘life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’. This programme focuses on basic research in functional genomics, applications of genomics and biotechnology, and applications related to medicine and health care. Already under the first call of priority one of the 6th FP a project related to tissue and cell engineering, which has a strong relevance for rheumatic diseases, has been selected and is currently under negotiation. The outcome of the second call, with a closure date of 13 November 2003, will be available mid-2004.

The Commission is defining at present topics to be considered for future calls of this priority with its scientific programme advisory group and its programme committee. It is the intention of the Commission to propose another topic for research related to rheumatic diseases in a later call of priority 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/760

---

(2004/C 84 E/0856)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of IPPC Directive in Ireland

What response if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the final written warning sent to Ireland in July 2003 (as announced in IP/03/1049) concerning the Irish Government's failure to properly implement the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Council Directive 96/61/EC (1))? What action is the Commission taking or proposing to take in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 11 July 2003 with regard to the incompleteness of national legislation to implement Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (2). On 29 July 2003, Ireland sent new legislation, namely the Protection of the Environment Act, 2003, which, according to Ireland, correctly transposes the Directive. However, it appears that further secondary legislation is needed with regard to Article 6 of the Directive. In addition, requirements of the new Act need to be formally commenced with commencement orders. These outstanding elements are still awaited, and the Commission is considering the next appropriate steps to take.

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/760

---

(2004/C 84 E/0857)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0092/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Evolution of electricity prices, investment in the energy sector

The German newspaper Handelsblatt reports on pages 1 and 9 of its 7 January 2004 edition that the energy company RWE is profiting from greatly increased electricity prices. In the Austrian Standard of 2 January 2004 the chairman of the board of EVN calls for a rise in network prices with a view to improve chances of achieving a minimum profit of 7 % on invested capital.

Can the Commission state how electricity prices for private households, small and medium-sized enterprises and large-scale consumers have evolved over the past five to ten years in the EU countries that have fully or partially privatised the energy sector?

How have they evolved in energy undertakings that are under State control?

How has investment in the electricity networks of European energy concerns developed since their (partial) privatisation?

To what extent have private energy companies invested in alternative energy sources in the past ten years?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Prices have been relatively stable since 1997 in nominal terms; this amounts to a considerable reduction in real terms across all groups. Small and medium sized enterprises have been the beneficiaries of price reductions, especially where competition has been introduced. Non-liberalised Member States have also delivered stable prices, but on a higher level. Many of the differences in prices between Member States can be explained by a lack of sufficient interconnection capacity which segments the European market. The Commission has examined this issue a number of times, notably in the Green Paper towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply (1) and most recently in the Communication on Energy Infrastructure and Security of Supply (2).

2003 has seen an upward trend which is expected to continue into 2004 since new investment in generation capacity will be needed in the next few years. A separate information note providing some background to current price trends will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of different ownership structures. In the countries which have a significant degree of state ownership of electricity generation, such as Ireland, Italy and Portugal, prices are rather high with France around the EU average, whereas prices for households in Greece are very low. In the Member States with ‘privatised’ electricity provision, prices in Belgium and Germany are above and those in the Nordic Member States below the EU average.

The Commission does not have detailed information on the level of investment by network companies.

The ‘Bundesverband Windenergie’ reports that cumulative investment of over EUR 1 billion has been made by private companies in Germany since 1990. Wind installations in Germany currently comprise around half of the total in the EU.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 769 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 743 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/761 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/761

---

(2004/C 84 E/0858)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0101/04

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Position of SMUs in the system for the funding of the EU's research activities

One of the objectives of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research is to enhance the competitiveness of the EU and for many years now SMUs have been recognised as the real generators of such improved competitiveness.

Nevertheless, the number of SMUs taking part in the Sixth Framework Programme has decreased substantially. The large-scale measures provided for by the Framework Programme, such as the IPs, (integrated projects) put firms off and the networks of excellence are often regarded as being primarily intended for universities and similar bodies. The Fifth Framework Programme made specific provision for SMUs in the form of the CRAFT instruments, offering undertakings a gateway to international cooperation. Unfortunately, the proportion of funding earmarked for CRAFT has been drastically reduced under the Sixth Framework Programme, giving rise to merciless competition among undertakings and needlessly raising the threshold for the award of funding.

Parliament has repeatedly urged that 15 % of the funding under the Framework Programme should be reserved for SMUs, a call which unfortunately has gone unheeded. For its part, the Commission has falsified the statistics, massaging them by categorising as SMUs, for example, non-profit-making undertakings, which may seemingly also include university foundations and other similar bodies.

As a result of this window dressing, the statistics have a better look, apparently showing an SMU participation rate of more than 10 % in many sectors. This clearly does not reflect either the original intention or the original spirit of the framework programmes, given that non-profit-making undertakings make no contribution whatsoever to the competitiveness of the EU.

Barely a day goes past without another fine speech being made about the brilliant future awaiting SMUs. However, their position needs to be improved here and now, given their vital importance for the competitiveness of the EU, for employment and for national economies in general.

What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to encourage participation by ordinary SMUs in European research projects?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Through the Decisions on the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) and on the Specific Programmes ‘Integrating and Strengthening the Foundations of the European Research Area’ and ‘Structuring the European Research Area’, SME-participation is strengthened and stimulated:

| — | at least 15 % of the budget allocated to the seven Priority Thematic Areas (PTA) is to be granted to SMEs (± EUR 1700 million). This represents a major increase of this target which had been set at 10 % for the 5th Framework Programme (FP5); |
| --- | --- |

—

at least 15 % of the budget allocated to the seven Priority Thematic Areas (PTA) is to be granted to SMEs (± EUR 1700 million). This represents a major increase of this target which had been set at 10 % for the 5th Framework Programme (FP5);

| — | EUR 430 million are devoted to horizontal research activities involving SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 430 million are devoted to horizontal research activities involving SMEs;

| — | The horizontal research activities involving SMEs and/or SME-associations include co-operative research (CRAFT) (± EUR 320 million) and collective research (± EUR 110 million). |
| --- | --- |

—

The horizontal research activities involving SMEs and/or SME-associations include co-operative research (CRAFT) (± EUR 320 million) and collective research (± EUR 110 million).

Economic and Technological Intelligence activity (ETI) is one of the activities within the Research and Innovation part of the Specific Programme ‘Structuring the European Research Area’. The major purpose of the ETI-projects is to create the right conditions for SMEs to participate in FP6-projects.

In addition, it must be highlighted that the Commission has been pro-active in stimulating and promoting SME-participation in FP6:

| — | a first initiative has been the creation of a dedicated SME-NCP-network. Through this network, SMEs and the research community at large are being informed and stimulated to combine their efforts in participating in FP6; |
| --- | --- |

—

a first initiative has been the creation of a dedicated SME-NCP-network. Through this network, SMEs and the research community at large are being informed and stimulated to combine their efforts in participating in FP6;

| — | a second initiative has been the creation of a Commission SME Task Force involving all the services involved in the operational management of FP6. The major objective of this Task Force is to monitor SME-participation in FP6 and to propose new initiatives or corrective measures to further promote SME-participation. |
| --- | --- |

—

a second initiative has been the creation of a Commission SME Task Force involving all the services involved in the operational management of FP6. The major objective of this Task Force is to monitor SME-participation in FP6 and to propose new initiatives or corrective measures to further promote SME-participation.

During the first FP6 implementing year, it must be mentioned that:

| — | following the first calls for horizontal research activities in FP6, about 1 070 SMEs will be awarded a research contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

following the first calls for horizontal research activities in FP6, about 1 070 SMEs will be awarded a research contract;

| — | following the first calls for proposals in FP6 PTA, about 2 450 SMEs will be awarded a research contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

following the first calls for proposals in FP6 PTA, about 2 450 SMEs will be awarded a research contract.

| — | the Commission launched a first call for proposals for ETI in April 2003. As a result of the first call, 20 projects have been retained which will receive a total funding of EUR 20 million. The projects cover a range of industrial sectors and the first ETI-projects have started their activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission launched a first call for proposals for ETI in April 2003. As a result of the first call, 20 projects have been retained which will receive a total funding of EUR 20 million. The projects cover a range of industrial sectors and the first ETI-projects have started their activities.

Although the relevant calculation for the achievement of the 15 % target is the allocation of Community financial contribution to SMEs at the end of the projects, monitoring of SME participation in FP6 is already done at different stages from proposal submission, evaluation and selection, until final distribution of EU financial contribution between contractors.

As a consequence, and according to the results of the first FP6 PTA calls, a number of corrective measures are currently under discussion in the SME Task Force. They include:

| — | making Workprogrammes more SME-friendly; |
| --- | --- |

—

making Workprogrammes more SME-friendly;

| — | topping up of new instrument projects from the first calls; |
| --- | --- |

—

topping up of new instrument projects from the first calls;

| — | integrated Projects (IP) dedicated to SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

—

integrated Projects (IP) dedicated to SMEs.

The implementation and timing of the above described measures or other initiatives will depend on the needs and resources of the PTA involved.

Furthermore, two large scale European Networks, namely the IRC Network and the Euro Info Centres, continue to provide information and support to a large number of SMEs of any size operating within all European countries (including the Accession Countries) and have been doing so for many years. Both Networks contribute significantly to increasing awareness on research and innovation within the SME community. Moreover, in the area of knowledge transfer to SMEs that is particularly important for their competitiveness in today's global environment, around 50 000 technology profiles were published and 500 trans-national technology transfers were reported by the IRC Network in 2002.

Finally, as far as the definition of small and medium sized enterprise (SME) is concerned, it must be highlighted that the definition applicable for FP5 and for FP6 is the one given in the 1996 Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC (1) based on the following four criteria: number of employees (< 250), annual turnover (<EUR 40 million) or annual balance sheet total (<EUR 27 million), and independence. It is this definition that legally has to be applied for the production of statistical data on SME-participation.

The concept of enterprises as being any entity engaged in an economic activity and irrespective of its legal form corresponds to the concept of ‘enterprise’ used constantly by the Court of Justice and the Commission in the field of competition and state law. In reply to the Honourable Member's concern, it is therefore possible that certain non-profit organisations legally have to be considered as SMEs too.

Furthermore, new SME definition has been adopted by the Commission, and will enter into force on 1 st January 2005. In this new definition, the ceilings for annual turnover/balance sheet total are increased to EUR 50 million and EUR 43 million respectively, and guidelines are given for the calculation of the number of employees. In addition, the concept of independence has been further developed and three categories of enterprises are identified: autonomous, partner and linked.

---

(1)  Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ L 107, 30.4.1996.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/764 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/764

---

(2004/C 84 E/0859)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0110/04

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject:   Legality of certain EU decisions should the Kyoto Protocol founder

The recitals (especially 4, 22, and 26) of the EU's emissions trading directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) (1) show that the directive has been produced on account of the Kyoto Protocol and is based on the assumption that the Protocol will be implemented. No national limits are imposed on emissions, but Article 9 refers to the criteria for allocation plans set out in Annex III: point 1 of that annex stipulates that each Member State's total quantity of allowances must be consistent with Decision 2002/358/EC (2) and the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, point 5 of Annex III refers to Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, relating to competition and aid. It is thus clear that without the Kyoto Protocol the ten new Member States at any rate will not fall under any national limitation.

The Council's burden-sharing decision (Decision 2002/358/EC) does not say that the Community will limit Member States' emissions in accordance with the annex, but that ‘The European Community and its Member States shall fulfil their commitments under Article 3(1) of the [Kyoto] Protocol jointly’ (Article 2, first paragraph) and ‘The quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments agreed by the European Community and its Member States for the purpose of determining the respective emission levels allocated to each of them for the ... period, from 2008 to 2012, are set out in Annex II’ (Article 2, second paragraph). If the Kyoto Protocol were to founder, the above two paragraphs would be rendered meaningless. All that would remain in force is the stipulation that ‘The European Community and its Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the emission levels set out in Annex II, as determined in accordance with Article 3 of this Decision’ (Article 2, third paragraph).

Article 3 has to do with determining absolute emission levels (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) for the 15 Member States in accordance with various provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, on which it therefore likewise hinges to a large extent.

Annex III to the burden-sharing decision also refers to implementation of obligations resulting from international agreements and the emission reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Can that be interpreted to mean that the force of the burden-sharing decision will be limited if the above-mentioned international agreement fails to come into being?

Is the Council's burden-sharing decision binding without the Kyoto Protocol? Can the Commission take a lawful decision to alter the burden to be shared, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, if the Kyoto Protocol does not enter into force? Can the emissions trading directive be implemented without the burden-sharing decision?

If the burden-sharing decision and the emissions trading directive are implemented in any case in their present form, would the Treaties allow ten Member States to engage in emissions trading if they had no binding emission limitation target?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Community and its Member States firmly support the Kyoto Protocol and they are committed to meeting its objectives. The EU's 6th Environment Action Programme, adopted by the Parliament and the Member States on 22 July 2002 as Decision 1600/2002/EC (3), recognises that the Community is committed to achieving an 8 % reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by the period 2008 to 2012 compared with 1990 levels, and that in the longer term, global emissions of greenhouse gases will need to be reduced by approximately 70 % compared with 1990 levels (recital 2 of Directive 2003/87/EC) (4).

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in New York on 9 May 1992. It has been ratified by over 180 countries. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted on 11 December 1997, complements the Framework Convention and sets reduction targets for 39 industrialised countries (the so-called Annex I countries). Its entry into force is dependent on ratification by at least 55 countries accounting for at least 55 % of the world's CO2 emissions in 1990. While the first criterion has already been met — over 120 countries have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol — the second still needs to be accomplished. In this context, only ratification of the Protocol by Russia, which is responsible for 17,4 % of the world's CO2 emissions, or the United States, responsible for 36,1 % of emissions, could swing the balance, as the remaining countries together represent only 2,1 %.

Under the UNFCCC the Community and its Member States are committed to implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet its objective of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (Article 2).

The Community has approved the Kyoto Protocol through Decision 2002/358/EC. As such, the Kyoto protocol will, once it enters into force, become part of Community law. This Decision also contains the Community's and Member States' greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2008-2012. Moreover, it requires the Community and its Member States to comply collectively with the target of an 8 % reduction. Therefore, the Community has adopted legal instruments, binding on the Member States, aimed at reaching its climate change commitments in a cost-effective manner including Directive 2003/87 on the establishment of an emission trading regime. Neither the burden sharing agreement nor the EU's emissions trading scheme are conditional on the Kyoto Protocol's entry into force.

As with any of its legislation, the Community could review Decision 2002/358/EC or Directive 2003/87 on the basis of its internal procedures, and alterations to it would have effect in Community law.

The 10 countries due to join the EU in May 2004 have all ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and the eight of them which are listed in Annex I (industrialised countries) have each been set a target on that basis — depending on the country, the required reduction ranges from 6 % to 8 %. No targets have been set for Malta or Cyprus, which are not listed in Annex I. However, Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC contains precise and objective criteria for allocating them pollution rights in the market which will start operating on 1 January 2005 (criteria 2 to 11 apply to them). Accordingly, all 25 Member States will operate in the pollution rights market provided for by Directive 2003/87/EC. It should also be noted that the 8 % reduction target set for the European Community only applies to the 15 current Member States. This situation will not alter after enlargement, as the 10 future members will not be included in the Kyoto Protocol's ‘EU bubble’ but will continue to be subject to the targets set for them when they ratified the Protocol.

---

(1)  OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.

(2)  OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.

(4)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for green house gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/765 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/765

---

(2004/C 84 E/0860)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Network and information security

In this time of ever-increasing threats to our information security, does the Commission see the value of an internationally recognised, independent method of evaluating and certifying the security of information communications technology (ICT) products? Does the Commission agree that the ‘Common Criteria’ provide such a method, and is it aware that the Common Criteria have been recognised by major countries in Europe, North America, and elsewhere, but that they have not yet been adopted by all Member States, and are not being considered by all Member States during the procurement of ICT products? Has the Commission considered how the European Network and Security Agency can promote further European uptake of the Common Criteria?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/766

---

(2004/C 84 E/0861)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Network and information security

Does the Commission agree that ICT products should be designed with specific security standards in mind, and with the goal of being evaluated and certified as having an internationally recognised level of security? If so, how can the European Network and Information Security Agency use the ‘Common Criteria’ to promote this goal?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/766

---

(2004/C 84 E/0862)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0183/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Network and information security

Information technology security continues to be an area where the Commission and other EU-level bodies must take care to protect their internal systems. Does the Commission agree that the ‘Common Criteria’ provide internationally accepted standards for judging the security of ICT products and, if so, how can the European Network and Information Security Agency use the Common Criteria when procuring its own products and providing procurement guidance to EU and Member State bodies?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0181/04, E-0182/04 and E-0183/04

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

With regard to network and information security standardisation and on Common Criteria in particular, the Commission has contributed throughout the whole process of the development of Common Criteria ever since the work with the predecessor, ITSEC, in 1991. The Commission has also worked with Member States in defining the Mutual Recognition Agreement of the Common Criteria standard ISO/IEC 15408.

The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), that is also mentioned by the Honourable Member as a possible vehicle for promoting this standard further in Europe, is about to start its operations within the coming months. The Commission is presently contributing to the drafting of the ENISA's work programme. In this reply the Commission suggests some tasks related to standardisation for ENISA, but no definitive answers can, at this stage, be given as to what ENISA's coming work programme will look like.

From the Commission's perspective, the use of recognised standards for evaluation and certification of ICT-products has been an important component of the policy for network and information security. The use of such standards in procurement activities was promoted in the Council Recommendation (95/144/EC) of 7 April 1995 (1). In the Commission Communication Network and Information Security: Proposal for A European Policy Approach (2), the Commission emphasised the importance of security certification of products as a key element to contribute to the users' trust and confidence. In this respect, the Common Criteria standard represents a solid, internationally recognised, framework for security certification of products. As such, it is widely used in procurement activities.

It has, however, proven difficult (also in the United States) to get the commercial sector (and in particular the financial sector) interested in and committed to uptake of ISO/IEC 15408. This was highlighted at the International Common Criteria Conference held in Stockholm in September 2003. To remedy this, ENISA could support the uptake of such a standard by engaging the stakeholders in network security in a discussion of the issues, problems and opportunities associated with the use of Common Criteria.

As far as network and information security standardisation is concerned, the Commission is assessing the implications of the recent joint CEN-ETSI report (3), which deals with network and information security standardisation issues that are relevant to the European Standards Organizations (ESOs). On this basis, future actions and policy initiatives will be elaborated.

At the technical level, the Commission has set the development of secure products and systems as a high priority of the IST programme and this would certainly contribute to improving the development practices of ICT products in Europe. ENISA could complement this activity by helping the Member States in developing appropriate education curricula on security, sharing experiences and co-operation on awareness campaigns targeting in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

As the Common Criteria standards provide a framework for product security and certification, the Commission would consider the adoption of such a standard in procurement activities, to date, as a good practice in all cases where stringent and auditable security is needed. Hence, should ENISA have such needs, it would be advisable to refer, as appropriate, to the Common Criteria while procuring its own products or giving advice to the Commission and Member State Governments on the use of Common Criteria in procurement. However, the Commission shall not forget that certified security does not come cheaply.

Lastly, it is important to note that the technical standard ISO/IEC 15408 would not be sufficient to ensure adequate level of security in an organisation. Indeed, any organisation or business shall also select and adhere to a management security standard (such as ISO/IEC 17799) to build and manage the necessary security processes and practices.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 26.4.1995.

(2)  COM(2001) 298 final.

(3)  ETSI SR 002 298.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/767 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/767

---

(2004/C 84 E/0863)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Projects offering alternatives to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (SNHP)

In November 2001 the Spanish ministries for science and technology, agriculture and the environment signed a protocol for studying and financing a project for desalination in Almeria as a possible way of remedying the water shortage in that region. In 2001 CIRCE (centre for research on energy resources and consumption) also drew up another report for the Ministry for the Environment.

The research findings support the desalination option and conclude that desalination plants, as well as offering optimum energy yield by using new technologies, would make it possible to supply 82 cubic hectometres per year at a price of EUR 0,30 per cubic metre in Almeria, whereas 90 cubic hectometres per year are supposed to be delivered under the National Hydrological Plan. The area's water needs could thus be covered with less impact on the environment and the water would cost less than the water diverted under the SNHP (EUR 0,34 per cubic metre).

Does the Commission know about these reports? If not, does it not consider that the SNHP project and its funding should be suspended until existing alternative projects have been assessed, such as those submitted by the government of Aragón or the aforementioned desalination plants, which have a lesser social, economic and environmental impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the specific studies referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission has received extensive information in the context of the ongoing discussion/reflections on the Spanish Hydrological Plan, concerning the efficacy and decreasing costs of desalination techniques. The thrust of much of this information is that the most recent advances in desalination technology enable the production of water with lower financial and environmental costs than other water supply alternatives.

The information on the potential of desalination will be taken into account by the Commission in the context of future decisions relating to the requests for Community funding (structural funds and cohesion fund) recently submitted by the Spanish authorities in relation to the proposed Ebro transfer.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/768 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/768

---

(2004/C 84 E/0864)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Financing for the new Athens airport

By decision E(96) 1356 of 23 May 1996 the Commission granted the company AIA SA funding of EUR 250 million to build the new Athens airport at Spata.

The company subsequently (on 14 June 1996) signed a contract for the airport project with Hochtief AG, formerly called Gebr. Helfmann of Essen (Germany), for a sum of EUR 1,8 billion. In its turn this company set up a branch in Athens which is not entered on the register of limited companies. Hochtief has concluded a whole series of contracts with other firms in order to sub-contract the construction work.

Hochtief has a 45 % share in AIA SA, the Greek State 55 %, although Hochtief controls the board of directors with 5 out of 9 directors. The Commission's decision E (96) 1356 named AIA SA as the entity responsible for carrying out the project. According to Article 12.2.6. of Greek Law No 2338/95, AIA SA cannot be considered as a body governed by public law, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1164/94 (1) states that funding may be granted only to bodies governed by public law.

Spat airport has also set extremely high airport taxes, because of its dominant position in air traffic to and from Greece. This prompted a number of passengers to lodge complaints with the Commission in July 2002.

| 1. | Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather than to a body governed by public law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather than to a body governed by public law?

| 2. | Why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport?

| 3. | Which of the two companies — Hochtief AG or Hellas SA — issued the invoice for the payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission to justify the funding of EUR 250 million? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Which of the two companies — Hochtief AG or Hellas SA — issued the invoice for the payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission to justify the funding of EUR 250 million?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

| 1. | The company Athens International Airport (AIA) Ltd is the airport concession-holder for a period of 30 years. Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, which was in force at the date of the Commission decision, does not restrict the legal status of the implementing body to the public sector. A private-law entity is entitled to receive Community assistance from the Cohesion Fund. In partnerships between the public and private sectors, the implementing bodies are generally private-law companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The company Athens International Airport (AIA) Ltd is the airport concession-holder for a period of 30 years. Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, which was in force at the date of the Commission decision, does not restrict the legal status of the implementing body to the public sector. A private-law entity is entitled to receive Community assistance from the Cohesion Fund. In partnerships between the public and private sectors, the implementing bodies are generally private-law companies.

| 2. | The Commission has received a complaint relating to the compliance with Community competition law of the airport's development and commercial operation. The complaint is in two main parts. The first concerns the Greek Government's imposition of an airport tax and its decision to grant exclusive rights to the airport operator. The second relates to the charges payable in return for certain airport services.
  On 22 May 2003 the Commission decided to close the first part of the complaint, i.e. that relating to action taken by the Greek Government. The Commission is currently continuing to investigate the airport charges, with a view to responding to the complainant regarding the second part of the complaint. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has received a complaint relating to the compliance with Community competition law of the airport's development and commercial operation. The complaint is in two main parts. The first concerns the Greek Government's imposition of an airport tax and its decision to grant exclusive rights to the airport operator. The second relates to the charges payable in return for certain airport services.

On 22 May 2003 the Commission decided to close the first part of the complaint, i.e. that relating to action taken by the Greek Government. The Commission is currently continuing to investigate the airport charges, with a view to responding to the complainant regarding the second part of the complaint.

| 3. | The company AIA Ltd has received the monthly invoices from the Greek firm (distinct from Hochtief Hellas) representing Hochtief AG, as well as the invoices from the Greek firms representing the constructors' consortium. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The company AIA Ltd has received the monthly invoices from the Greek firm (distinct from Hochtief Hellas) representing Hochtief AG, as well as the invoices from the Greek firms representing the constructors' consortium.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/769 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/769

---

(2004/C 84 E/0865)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Extension of TAEIX's area of activity to the Western Balkans

The Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) was set up to provide targeted technical assistance to applicant countries in the area of the Community acquis. The Commission communication of 21 May 2003 (1) proposed that its services also be provided in future to the countries of the Western Balkans.

Have further decisions already been taken regarding the extension of TAIEX services or similar assistance to the countries of the Western Balkans?

What implementing provisions have been established?

What funding is being made available for services provided to Balkan countries?

How is this being carried out in practice?

To what extent are the new Member States involved (sharing experience, expertise, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

The Thessaloniki Agenda, endorsed i.a. by the Heads of State or Government of the Member States and of the Western Balkans countries at the EU-Western Balkans Summit held in Thessaloniki on 21 June 2003, states that:

| | SAP countries will become eligible for technical assistance by TAIEX, including for monitoring the compatibility of national legislations of SAP countries with the Community acquis. This technical assistance will be delivered through activities adapted to their specific needs and level of rapprochement to the EU. |
| --- | --- |

SAP countries will become eligible for technical assistance by TAIEX, including for monitoring the compatibility of national legislations of SAP countries with the Community acquis. This technical assistance will be delivered through activities adapted to their specific needs and level of rapprochement to the EU.

As a follow-up to this point of the Thessaloniki Agenda, a budget has been allocated from the CARDS Regional Budget to the existing TAIEX office (2002: EUR 3,9 million, 2003: EUR 1,25 million) aimed at establishing TAIEX services specifically for the administrations of the Western Balkans countries.

An introductory meeting was held in Brussels on 8 December 2003, at which representatives from the administrations of all Western Balkans countries participated. At this meeting, which signified the formal opening of TAIEX to the Western Balkans countries, the Commission gave information about the approach, activities and services of TAIEX.

When providing TAIEX services to the Western Balkans countries the Commission has chosen a progressive approach. Whereas — as in the case of the enlargement countries — the basic idea is for TAIEX services to be provided on a demand-driven basis, the Commission will co-operate closely with the countries to define the priorities for the services of TAIEX for each of the Western Balkans countries. The Commission will present this year's priorities to the individual countries' governments shortly. Priorities will be discussed with the individual countries and revised regularly.

TAIEX is expected to be fully operational in relation to the Western Balkans countries in the course of March 2004. The Commission's Delegations in the region — as well as the European Agency for Reconstruction and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) — will be closely associated with the operation of TAIEX in the region which will also draw upon the experience and expertise of the new Member States for its activities.

---

(1)  COM(2003)285.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/770 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/770

---

(2004/C 84 E/0866)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0313/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Galway incinerator

The city of Galway plans the installation of an incinerator near Galway Bay, which is the only fresh water source for the area. This area is also a designated tourist area.

Is the EU Commission aware of or involved in plans to monitor the installation of this incinerator? Can the Commission confirm it is in line with the directives regarding the environment and consumer protection?

Would the EU Commission confirm its involvement in the construction of the incinerator in Vienna, Austria?

Can the Commission explain the difference between the proposed Galway incinerator and the Vienna model?

What advantages are there in choosing the so-called Vienna model? I am informed by residents in Galway that the Vienna incinerator also heats homes and can blend into its surroundings. Can the Commission confirm this, and is the Vienna incinerator the most up-to-date model available?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

All installations which incinerate waste have to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (1). The Directive covers incineration and co-incineration plants. The limit values set in Directive 2000/76/EC aim at preventing as far as practicable, negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to human health. The granting of permits for waste incinerators falls under the responsibility of national authorities. The actual risk at local level has to be assessed for each individual case within the authorization procedure. The national authorities do not need to notify applications for the construction and operation of a waste incinerator, or the permits issued, to the Commission. The Commission is therefore not aware of the request to construct the incinerator mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/771 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/771

---

(2004/C 84 E/0867)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Funding of research with embryonic stem cells

After the meeting of the Competition Council on 26 November 2003, several media sources quoted the corresponding statements of government representatives of different Member States (e.g. Germany Italy Austria, Luxembourg, Spain) which supported the Portuguese proposal.

Subsequently, Research Commissioner Busquin declared during lunch that he would support a Portuguese compromise proposal intending only to fund research on embryonic stem cells if they were created before a certain deadline, and not to fund research on embryos as such.

However, some days later, Commissioner Busquin declared that his statement was misunderstood.

Can the Commission confirm that the Portuguese compromise proposal was quoted correctly by the government representatives of Germany and Portugal, and can the Commissioner clarify in which form he signalled his consent to the Portuguese compromise? In the Commission's view, in what way exactly was he misunderstood; was the compromise proposal not clearly worded or did the Commissioner not clearly understand the consequences of the proposal?

At his press call on 3 December 2003, after the inconclusive Council meeting, Mr Busquin declared that the Commission would be careful to fund only those projects which would be acceptable to all Member States. Can the Commission confirm this? Can the Commission explain the reason for the difference between this statement by Commissioner Busquin and the present position of the Commission, which claims the legal right to fund research which is illegal or unconstitutional in a number of Member States?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is referring to the informal discussions which took place in the margins of the Council meeting of 26 November 2003 and which were purely exploratory in nature. The Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure.

Despite the very clear views expressed by Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in favour of the Commission's proposal (1), the Council meeting of 3 December 2003 did not wish to settle this issue.

Consequently, in the absence of a new legislative text, the Commission is bound to implement the 6th Framework Programme and the specific programme ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ which authorise such research.

The proposals concerned by into human embryo stem cell research will be evaluated case by case on the basis of the text of the framework programme adopted in the context of the co-decision procedure on 27 June 2002 and the specific programme adopted by the Council on 30 September 2002. Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the specific programme (2), any proposal for Community funding in this area requires approval case by case by the Programme Committee consisting of national delegates appointed by the Member States. Until such time as the Council reaches agreement on the amended Commission proposal of 26 November 2003 (3), the Commission will not propose the funding of research relating to the procurement of stem cells from supernumerary human embryos.

The Commission's position on this research remains that expressed in its amended proposal of 26 November 2003 which is still before the Council.

---

(1)  A proposal aimed at ensuring very stringent, clear and transparent rules for Community research concerning the procurement of stem cells from supernumerary human embryos.

(2)  The Committee procedure laid down in Article 7(3) applies to the adoption of RTD actions involving the use of human embryos and human embryo stem cells (Council Decision 2002/834/EC, OJ L 294, p. 3).

(3)  COM(2003) 749 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/772 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/772

---

(2004/C 84 E/0868)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0326/04

by Willi Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Subsidies for new fishing nets

| 1. | For how long has the use of so-called Bacoma nets, for the protection of Baltic cod stocks, been a legal requirement for fishermen from EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For how long has the use of so-called Bacoma nets, for the protection of Baltic cod stocks, been a legal requirement for fishermen from EU Member States?

| 2. | Is it possible for the European Union to grant financial subsidies to facilitate the acquisition of these nets? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it possible for the European Union to grant financial subsidies to facilitate the acquisition of these nets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | Bacoma (1) fishing trawls were introduced as alternative gear in the total allowable catches (TAC) and quota Regulation for 2002 (2). The technical specifications of these trawls were amended in 2003 by Regulation (EC) No l754/2003 (3) amending the 2003 TAC and quota Regulation (4), which also made the use of Bacoma trawls mandatory when fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Bacoma (1) fishing trawls were introduced as alternative gear in the total allowable catches (TAC) and quota Regulation for 2002 (2). The technical specifications of these trawls were amended in 2003 by Regulation (EC) No l754/2003 (3) amending the 2003 TAC and quota Regulation (4), which also made the use of Bacoma trawls mandatory when fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea.

| 2. | According to Article 9, paragraph 1, section (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (5): ‘Public aid for the equipment of fishing vessels, including for the use of more selective fishing techniques [...] may be granted ...’. However, the very last paragraph of point 1,4 of annex III specifies that ‘ ... the replacement of fishing gear shall not be considered eligible expenditure’. Furthermore, point 1,4 (b)(i) of annexe III of this same Regulation specifies that ‘investments should related to [...] the rationalisation of fishing operations by the use of more selective or low impact fishing technologies and methods on board in order to avoid undesirable by catches, other than those provided for in Community law ...’. Given that the use of Bacoma trawls has been made mandatory by Community law in Baltic Sea waters, investments for such gear to be used in Baltic waters is no longer eligible for this type of support. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to Article 9, paragraph 1, section (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (5): ‘Public aid for the equipment of fishing vessels, including for the use of more selective fishing techniques [...] may be granted ...’. However, the very last paragraph of point 1,4 of annex III specifies that ‘ ... the replacement of fishing gear shall not be considered eligible expenditure’. Furthermore, point 1,4 (b)(i) of annexe III of this same Regulation specifies that ‘investments should related to [...] the rationalisation of fishing operations by the use of more selective or low impact fishing technologies and methods on board in order to avoid undesirable by catches, other than those provided for in Community law ...’. Given that the use of Bacoma trawls has been made mandatory by Community law in Baltic Sea waters, investments for such gear to be used in Baltic waters is no longer eligible for this type of support.

| 3. | Compensation for loss of productivity following the adoption of the Bacoma trawl may be granted to affected vessels, according to Article 16 paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 dealing with ‘Temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensations’ which specifies that ‘The Member States may grant financial compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels where a Council Decision imposes technical restrictions of the use of certain gear or fishing methods; this aid is intended to cover the technical adjustment and may not be paid for more than six months’. For such compensation to be offered for the maximum period of six months specified above, to the vessels which have had to adopt the Bacoma trawl, evidence would have to be provided to the responsible management authority on the magnitude and duration of the loss of productivity incurred. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Compensation for loss of productivity following the adoption of the Bacoma trawl may be granted to affected vessels, according to Article 16 paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 dealing with ‘Temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensations’ which specifies that ‘The Member States may grant financial compensation to fishermen and owners of vessels where a Council Decision imposes technical restrictions of the use of certain gear or fishing methods; this aid is intended to cover the technical adjustment and may not be paid for more than six months’. For such compensation to be offered for the maximum period of six months specified above, to the vessels which have had to adopt the Bacoma trawl, evidence would have to be provided to the responsible management authority on the magnitude and duration of the loss of productivity incurred.

---

(1)  Bacoma is a three-year research project that is partly funded by the EC.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2555/2001 of 18 December 2001 fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required, OJ L 347, 31.12.2001.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1754/2003 of 22 September 2003 amending for the third time Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, OJ L 252, 4.10.2003.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002, OJ L 356, 31.12.2002.

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999 as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/773 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/773

---

(2004/C 84 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/04

by Marco Cappato (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI) and Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Chinese New Year parade in Paris

On the occasion of the Chinese New Year parade in Paris, held on 24 January 2004, the mayor of the city and its police bureau refused to allow the French Falun Gong Association to take part in the parade.

The French Falun Gong Association asked to take part in the parade with performances of the Lion Dance, Chinese drummers, traditional dancing and decorated floats. Less than a week before the event, the City Hall refused the application due to bureaucratic problems linked to the registration date. The truth is that the documents were sent on time, back in October. Moreover, the French Falun Gong Association was not given authorisations for other activities during the festivity it had applied for, such as performing traditional Falun Gong exercises, and handing out information.

It seems that the Chinese Embassy threatened to cancel all of the festivities if the City of Paris allowed Falun Gong to participate. Other non-official voices, which the Chinese authorities have repressed, have also met with similar obstacles.

Is the Commission aware of the facts of what happened in Paris last week?

What does the Commission intend to do in order to avoid similar cases occurring again on EU territory?

Does the Commission intend to speak to the French Government, the City Hall of Paris and the Chinese Ambassadors to France and the EU, in order to remind them that freedom of expression and demonstration are basic human rights clearly protected by Article 6 of the TEU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union do not confer on the Community any general powers as regards fundamental rights. The Commission is entitled to act only where such rights have been violated in the course of applying Community law, which is not the case with the events referred to by the Honourable Members.

As a general point, the Commission would like to stress that it regularly brings up the cases of individual Falun Gong members whose fundamental rights have not been respected as a result of their belonging to that organisation as part of the EU-China dialogue on human rights, most recently at the session held in Dublin on 26/27 February 2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/773 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/773

---

(2004/C 84 E/0870)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Setting up of a regional coordination centre for social policy for the Balkans

Some considerable time ago the Commission announced the setting up, or joint setting up, of a regional coordination centre for social policy in the Balkans. The establishment of the centre was scheduled for spring 2004.

What is the situation as regards the establishment of this regional social policy coordination centre for countries in south-eastern Europe?

In particular:

| — | how far have preparations for setting up the centre come; |
| --- | --- |

—

how far have preparations for setting up the centre come;

| — | what is the scheduled date for its activities to begin; |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the scheduled date for its activities to begin;

| — | where will the centre be; |
| --- | --- |

—

where will the centre be;

| — | what staff and financial resources will be assigned to the coordination centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

what staff and financial resources will be assigned to the coordination centre;

| — | what are the centre's tasks; |
| --- | --- |

—

what are the centre's tasks;

| — | what partners will be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

what partners will be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre;

| — | how will the countries in the region be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre? |
| --- | --- |

—

how will the countries in the region be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The establishment of a regional co-ordination centre for social policy is envisaged as a continuation of the project: ‘Strengthening Social Cohesion by promoting Coordination of National Social Security Schemes in South Eastern Europe (SEE)’ under the auspices of the Initiative for Social Cohesion of the Stability Pact for SEE.

The regional co-ordination centre will be financed by the 2003 CARDS regional programme (EUR 2 million over three years) and established in close co-operation with the Council of Europe (co-financing EUR 200 000). The overall project implies more than the mere setting up of a regional co-ordination centre (the location of which has not yet been decided). The objective is to share with, and propose to, the national authorities various co-ordination instruments and to share EU ‘best practice’ in relation to matters with trans-border implications.

The activities of the project will focus on three major areas:

| — | support for co-operation on social protection reform; |
| --- | --- |

—

support for co-operation on social protection reform;

| — | institutional support and vocational training in the social sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

institutional support and vocational training in the social sector;

| — | support for social dialogue and information exchange, in particular regarding social and civil rights and trans-border questions (equal treatment, export of benefits, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

—

support for social dialogue and information exchange, in particular regarding social and civil rights and trans-border questions (equal treatment, export of benefits, etc.).

Preparatory work for the establishment of the centre has been on-going since September 2003 and the terms of reference for the CARDS project are almost finished. Certain procedural details as well as the deployment of human and budgetary resources still need to be agreed between the Commission and the Council of Europe. However, it is envisaged that a direct agreement will soon be signed with the Council of Europe and that the activities of the centre will start at the latest at the beginning of June 2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/774 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/774

---

(2004/C 84 E/0871)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   The unchanged human rights and democracy situation in China and Hong Kong, the threat to Taiwan and the need for the arms embargo

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that the main change for the better in the People's Republic of China since 1989 has been its rapid and often uncontrolled economic growth, which gives rise to the hope that in future the people of China will no longer need to live in poverty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that the main change for the better in the People's Republic of China since 1989 has been its rapid and often uncontrolled economic growth, which gives rise to the hope that in future the people of China will no longer need to live in poverty?

| 2. | Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 with regard to freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of the press? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 with regard to freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

| 3. | Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 as regards refraining from arresting political dissidents, ending the monopoly on power of a single political party or abolishing the frequently used death penalty? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 as regards refraining from arresting political dissidents, ending the monopoly on power of a single political party or abolishing the frequently used death penalty?

| 4. | Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 in the handling of the efforts of the inhabitants of the former British crown colony of Hong Kong, now part of China, towards a fully fledged parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 in the handling of the efforts of the inhabitants of the former British crown colony of Hong Kong, now part of China, towards a fully fledged parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law?

| 5. | Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 as regards setting aside plans to conquer the island of Taiwan, which belonged to China only between 1945 and 1949, and whose original population is now opting for lasting independence and neighbourly relations with China? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 as regards setting aside plans to conquer the island of Taiwan, which belonged to China only between 1945 and 1949, and whose original population is now opting for lasting independence and neighbourly relations with China?

| 6. | Is the Commission sure that tragic events involving the power of the State, comparable with the crackdown on the uprising in 1989, could now never happen again? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission sure that tragic events involving the power of the State, comparable with the crackdown on the uprising in 1989, could now never happen again?

| 7. | Is the Commission prepared to contribute to ensuring that the arms embargo against the People's Republic of China is maintained at the same level for as long as there is no constitutional democracy in that country, obstacles are placed in the path of democracy in Hong Kong and no non-aggression pact is concluded between China and Taiwan? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Is the Commission prepared to contribute to ensuring that the arms embargo against the People's Republic of China is maintained at the same level for as long as there is no constitutional democracy in that country, obstacles are placed in the path of democracy in Hong Kong and no non-aggression pact is concluded between China and Taiwan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Although acknowledging certain improvements in the situation of Human Rights in China over recent years, the EU remains concerned with the present state of play in many respects and, in particular, in the field of civil and political rights. Most issues mentioned by the Honourable Member have been addressed in the framework of the EU-China dialogue on Human Rights and it is the intention of the EU to proceed soon with an overall assessment of this dialogue. At the same time, the EU has been following — and will continue to follow — closely the situation in Hong Kong and Taiwan. These issues, be they related to the human rights situation in China or of a regional nature, will certainly have to be carefully considered in the discussions on eventually lifting the embargo on arms sales to China.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/775 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/775

---

(2004/C 84 E/0872)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/04

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Extension of operating licence for Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant

In the autumn of 2003, the operating licence for the Sosnovy Bor nuclear power unit, the same type as Chernobyl, expired and an application has been made to extend it.

In the light of the EU's cooperation with Russia under TACIS, does the Commission consider that safety at this nuclear plant meets international standards? Does the administration granting the licence meet the standards that must be required of such an authority? Any there any guarantees that the nuclear waste is managed and dealt with in accordance with international conventions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant has four RBMK-type reactors (1) of which two are first generation (commissioned in 1973 and 1975) and are considered by experts as not complying with internationally-recognised safety standards. The Commission has always recommended the decommissioning of these and other Soviet first-generation reactors. The Commission and the Russian Federation form part of a joint working group (JWG) which has been set up to look at how Russian first-generation reactors might be decommissioned. The Group's work programme was endorsed by the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group at its last meeting in Geneva on 4 February this year.

The Russian Federation has been a contracting party to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Nuclear Safety since 1996 and the Russian government has undertaken to guarantee the independence and authority of the nuclear regulation agency (Gosatomnadzor) under the Convention.

The Russian Federation is responsible for the development and implementation of its own nuclear regulation system. Since 1994 Gosatomnadzor has received assistance under the Tacis programme from a European consortium of European national safety authorities which has been helping it build a strong, independent and competent organisation tailored to Russia's particular needs and respecting the fundamental principles set out in the Nuclear Safety Convention. Assistance has focused on promoting a licensing system, developing quality assurance systems and improving safety analysis criteria. Significant progress has been made on legislation, regulations, procedures and working methods. However, Gosatomnadzor's independence vis-à-vis the operator of power plants and the political authorities is of course a matter for the national authorities.

Although Russia signed the IAEA's Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in January 1999, the Convention has not yet entered into force in Russia. It is therefore impossible at this stage to guarantee that the management and handling of waste comply with international practices.

---

(1)  Graphite-moderated water reactors.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/776 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/776

---

(2004/C 84 E/0873)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0337/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Subsidies for Parmalat

According to press reports, the financial scandal surrounding the Italian food manufacturer Parmalat seems to be taking on ever greater proportions.

Can the Commission say whether the bankrupt dairy manufacturer Parmalat has received funding from EU sources?

If so, can the Commission say what amounts were paid out and over what period?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Parmalat has received Community funding.

Since 1990 it has received, by way of expenditure directly managed by the Commission, payments totalling EUR 2 278 448,00, broken down as follows:

| Year/period | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| 1990 | 733 747,76 |
| 1991-1998 | 677 636,24 |
| 1999-2003 | 867 064,00 |
| Total | 2 278 448,00 |

Year/period

Amount

1990

733 747,76

1991-1998

677 636,24

1999-2003

867 064,00

Total

2 278 448,00

By way of indirect expenditure (under shared management), i.e. the award of Community aid financed or co-financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) under the common agricultural policy, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the following two remarks:

| — | firstly, the agricultural aid payments financed by EAGGF, Guarantee Section are managed by the Member States under the provisions of shared management. The accounting information concerning these aid payments is held by the Member States and transmitted to the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (1) which, under Article 2(3), obliges the Commission to ensure that the information received is kept confidential. The Commission is therefore unable to provide details of the amounts received by Parmalat under EAGGF Guarantee; |
| --- | --- |

—

firstly, the agricultural aid payments financed by EAGGF, Guarantee Section are managed by the Member States under the provisions of shared management. The accounting information concerning these aid payments is held by the Member States and transmitted to the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (1) which, under Article 2(3), obliges the Commission to ensure that the information received is kept confidential. The Commission is therefore unable to provide details of the amounts received by Parmalat under EAGGF Guarantee;

| — | secondly, Parmalat may also have been awarded aid under programmes co-financed by EAGGF Guidance. Rural development measures assisted under EAGGF Guidance are incorporated in operational programmes in accordance with the Objective 1 programming rules laid down in the regulations on the Structural Funds (2). In accordance with these regulations the programmes in question do not contain financial information at the level of the final recipient of the aid. Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (3) concerning the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds lays down the form and content of the accounting information the Member States must hold. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, Parmalat may also have been awarded aid under programmes co-financed by EAGGF Guidance. Rural development measures assisted under EAGGF Guidance are incorporated in operational programmes in accordance with the Objective 1 programming rules laid down in the regulations on the Structural Funds (2). In accordance with these regulations the programmes in question do not contain financial information at the level of the final recipient of the aid. Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (3) concerning the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds lays down the form and content of the accounting information the Member States must hold.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/777 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/777

---

(2004/C 84 E/0874)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0347/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Subject:   Use of ACT in treatment of malaria

Would the Commission outline its position on the use of ACT (artemisinine combination) for the treatment of malaria?

Is the Commission aware that whilst ACT is the treatment recommended by the World Health Organisation, there is a reluctance to introduce ACT combinations in countries with high resistance to other drugs because of the costs involved?

How does the Commission propose to deal with this growing problem?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the expansion of malaria strains resistant to anti-malarials, particularly chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pirimethamine (SP). The World Health Organisation (WHO) issued malaria treatment guidelines in January 2003 and November 2003 where they recommend five therapeutic options, of which four are artemisine-combination therapies (ACT), for regions with low levels of resistance to these drugs, such as West Africa. While the recommendations rely on epidemiological, parasitological and clinical criteria, there is no in-depth analysis of the costs involved and the capacities of countries and the current international financial instruments to ensure a sustainable strategy. The specific role of ACTs in all treatment levels, including frontline treatment, or referral levels, is not detailed either.

Malaria treatment strategies in countries are decisions that must be taken by each country after weighing up the potential impact, the investments needed, their resources and capacities and the comparison with other alternatives. Some countries outside West Africa, such as Mozambique, have decided on non-ACTs strategies.

Within the framework policy of the ‘Programme for Action: Accelerated action on human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction’ (1), the Commission aims at reducing the burden of malaria though the three main pillars of the programme, all related to malaria treatment.

The Commission is trying to increase the impact of interventions. To this end, the Commission has speeded up and increased the support to malaria programmes. Overall, the Commission has programmed EUR 1,1 billion to fight these diseases in the period 2003-2006, some 25 % of the interventions targeting malaria. This includes the Commission contribution to the Global Fund (EUR 460 million for 2001-2006), where USD 30 millions have already been committed for the purchase of ACTs in the three first proposal rounds. The Commission has also programmed support under the thematic budget line on poverty diseases, to initiatives introducing malaria combination therapies, including ACTs. But the bulk of the Commission support for countries to progress towards health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) — including the 6th MDG related to malaria is through sector and, progressively, general budget support. The capacity of any country to decide on the inclusion of the most effective treatment options will be related to their financial capacities and it is here where the Commission tries to direct the lion's share of its support.

The Commission continues to be active in promoting the reduction of prices of essential medicines such as ACTs, through advocacy and legal support (such as the regulation to prevent re-importation of tiered-priced medicines) of tiered pricing, the use of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provisions and the promotion of local production of ACTs. In this regard, the Commission is in the process of reviewing initiatives aiming at local production of quality and affordable ACTs, submitted following a call for proposals launched in 2003.

The Commission has also programmed significant research resources to develop more effective medicines and vaccines for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. This includes support, in partnership with developing countries of basic research and phase I trials (EUR 200 million) and clinical trials (under the European Development Clinical Trials Programme (EDCTP): EUR 200 million from the Commission and EUR 200 million from Member States). Through this integrated approach the Commission aims at alleviating the burden of malaria and its effects on poverty in developing countries.

Whilst the Commission supports, in principle, WHO recommended therapeutic protocols for malaria or other diseases in developing countries, it holds the clear view that decisions on such strategies have to be made by the country concerned based on local conditions.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 93 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/779

---

(2004/C 84 E/0875)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0350/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Travel agencies: repercussions of the Alitalia crisis on employment

The crisis affecting Alitalia is likely to damage other sectors connected with air transport, in particular travel agencies.

The industrial restructuring plan under discussion at present envisages drastic cuts in the commission paid to agencies — from 7 % to 1 % on the sale of international tickets and from 3 % to 1 % on the sale of domestic tickets.

As reported by the national representatives of associations of travel agents, these decisions may lead to the closure of hundreds of agencies. This means that more than 10 000 jobs, about four times as many jobs as those threatened in Alitalia, are at risk.

Furthermore the cuts, which would result in a rise in air fares, would have other repercussions on consumers. The end user would have the practical problem of obtaining tickets, because agencies are obliged to refuse to provide a service which has become too expensive.

It should also be noted that operators in the sector were informed of these decisions, unprecedented in Europe, only 60 days in advance.

In view of the serious consequences such a move would have on employment and bearing in mind that travel agencies are the main channel for air-ticket sales, since they manage 91 % of ticket turnover, and hence a crisis in the sector would impact not only on Alitalia, worsening its already precarious position, but also on all other European airlines, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the European Union has the power to intervene in the matter, in accordance with policies to safeguard employment or by virtue of any other relevant competence; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the European Union has the power to intervene in the matter, in accordance with policies to safeguard employment or by virtue of any other relevant competence;

| 2. | how it views the matter as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

2.

how it views the matter as a whole?

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/779

---

(2004/C 84 E/0876)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0351/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Travel agencies: serious difficulties for operators and customers

Travel agencies are currently experiencing serious difficulties as a result of the crisis in the tourism sector, which suffered a recession as a result of the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, fears of the spread of infectious diseases, price increases linked to the introduction of the euro and fears of air disasters and wars. The situation is now becoming worse because many European airlines have decided to substantially cut the commission paid to agencies, in order to reduce their debts and meet the needs of the market. The recent crisis affecting Alitalia, which led to it to take such a decision, was only the latest in a series of events which continue to have an impact on other operators in the sector. Air France, Iberia, Lufthansa, Tyrolean and British Airways have also already announced drastic cuts in commission. In order not to lose their livelihood completely, agencies are now obliged to pass on considerable additional costs when issuing tickets. It should be emphasised that it is first and foremost consumers who suffer the consequences of this situation, both as regards price increases and the risk that, in the long term, many agencies will be obliged to close down and thus an extremely important intermediary service will come to an end. Agencies do not only issue tickets but provide advice about timetables, the best fares and connections, inform passengers about strikes or flight cancellations, make arrangements for refund applications, book special services for people with disabilities and unaccompanied minors, and accept various methods of payment. Consumers are not always able to do these things themselves by contacting the airlines in person.

It is a serious problem that airlines, in order to justify the cuts, claim that they need to cope with competition from low-cost airlines and their marketing policies. It is no secret that these airlines target different customers, do not provide the same quality of service and do not offer the end user the same reliability, convenient scheduling, and the certainty of protection in the event of problems. In contrast, the scheduled airlines do not reduce the privileges for frequent travellers, such as discounts, ‘airmiles’, free stopovers and other incentives.

In view of all this and the fact that the European market is based on the rules of free competition and the Union has also undertaken to protect workers and consumers, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the EU can intervene in this area; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the EU can intervene in this area;

| 2. | whether it can offer guidance on the issue of competition between scheduled airlines and ‘low-cost’ airlines; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it can offer guidance on the issue of competition between scheduled airlines and ‘low-cost’ airlines;

| 3 | whether there are any examples of good practice and/or codes of self-regulation for airlines which may be used as a model? |
| --- | --- |

3

whether there are any examples of good practice and/or codes of self-regulation for airlines which may be used as a model?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0350/04 and E-0351/04

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of several decisions by European airlines, in particular Alitalia, to modify their system of paying commission to travel agencies. It understands that this is a matter of paramount importance for travel agencies and that they are concerned about the impact these changes may have on profitability and employment.

However, it should be stressed that the organisation of airlines' ticket sales is a matter which concerns the commercial freedom of each company, subject to the general rules that apply (contract and competition law, the single market, etc.). The Commission does not have any particular power beyond these general rules. It is also not aware of any code of good practice and/or self-regulation in this respect. There is one example of voluntary commitments given by airlines, but this only concerns passengers' rights (1).

Furthermore, as indicated in the question, travel agencies provide a whole range of services other than simply issuing tickets and handle a very large proportion of the ticket sales of conventional airlines. It must therefore be in the airlines' interest for this sales channel to continue to exist.

As far as the low-cost airlines are concerned, they sell practically all their tickets directly, mainly via the Internet, and as a result the conventional airlines, including Alitalia, have boosted their direct sales. However a large proportion of the low-cost airlines' customers are new and are people who did not normally travel by air in the past. The low-cost companies' market share is currently about 12 % of flights within the Union.

---

(1)  http://www.ecac-ceac.org

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/781 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/781

---

(2004/C 84 E/0877)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0358/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Proceedings concerning the German deposit on drinks cans

In October 2003 the Commission opened infringement proceedings concerning the German deposit on drinks cans.

Given that the deadline for the Federal Republic of Germany to issue a response has passed, and that the regulations pose a threat not only to intra-Community trade, but also to production plants in Germany, can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | What stage has been reached in the proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What stage has been reached in the proceedings?

| 2. | What arguments has the Commission put forward against the German regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What arguments has the Commission put forward against the German regulation?

| 3. | Does the Commission believe it would make sense to immediately suspend the German regulation on deposits on drinks cans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission believe it would make sense to immediately suspend the German regulation on deposits on drinks cans?

| 4. | What measures are planned, and when will they be implemented? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures are planned, and when will they be implemented?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

| 1. | On 21 October 2003, the Commission decided to send the Federal Republic of Germany a letter of formal notice. Germany responded by letters dated 22 December 2003 and 22 January 2004. The Commission is currently studying Germany's reply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 October 2003, the Commission decided to send the Federal Republic of Germany a letter of formal notice. Germany responded by letters dated 22 December 2003 and 22 January 2004. The Commission is currently studying Germany's reply.

| 2. | In its letter of formal notice, the Commission criticised the practical implementation of the deposit and return obligation laid down in the Verpackungsverordnung (Packaging Regulation) because of the absence of comprehensive and mutually compatible return systems. If there is no functioning, nationwide arrangement for deposit clearing between return systems, it is reasonable to assume that retailers might decide to stop stocking some or all of the beverages concerned. The Commission is therefore currently examining whether and, if so, in what way the deposit and return system, in its current form, has the effect of restricting the import of beverages into Germany. As regards the problem of ‘Insellösungen’ (‘stand-alone’ or ‘individual’ solutions), these have the effect of increasing production costs and can restrict imports from other Member States, because manufacturers have to set up their own production/packaging lines for some parts of the German market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In its letter of formal notice, the Commission criticised the practical implementation of the deposit and return obligation laid down in the Verpackungsverordnung (Packaging Regulation) because of the absence of comprehensive and mutually compatible return systems. If there is no functioning, nationwide arrangement for deposit clearing between return systems, it is reasonable to assume that retailers might decide to stop stocking some or all of the beverages concerned. The Commission is therefore currently examining whether and, if so, in what way the deposit and return system, in its current form, has the effect of restricting the import of beverages into Germany. As regards the problem of ‘Insellösungen’ (‘stand-alone’ or ‘individual’ solutions), these have the effect of increasing production costs and can restrict imports from other Member States, because manufacturers have to set up their own production/packaging lines for some parts of the German market.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany must meet its obligations under Community law. To the extent that the choice of instrument lies with the individual Member State, it is up to the latter to decide which instrument is most appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany must meet its obligations under Community law. To the extent that the choice of instrument lies with the individual Member State, it is up to the latter to decide which instrument is most appropriate.

| 4. | The Commission will take appropriate measures pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in the light of both its examination of Germany's reply and its ongoing assessment of market conditions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission will take appropriate measures pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in the light of both its examination of Germany's reply and its ongoing assessment of market conditions.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/781 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/781

---

(2004/C 84 E/0878)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0377/04

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Sustainable management of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean and measures to combat illegal fishing

Owing to unreasonably intensive and illegal fishing, fisheries stocks in Greece and other Mediterranean countries have fallen significantly: this has led to an environmental imbalance in the marine ecosystem. As part of the viable exploitation of the fisheries resources and stocks of the Mediterranean by the Union, special emphasis is being given to a policy of conservation, and it is intended to extend the fisheries jurisdiction of Member States in the Mediterranean as part of a broader, multilateral initiative involving the other coastal states of the region (1).

Given the failure of the Union to take any action to promote the sustainable development of fisheries resources and the inability to combat illegal fishing and given also that the European Community has exclusive jurisdiction as regards the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, will the Commission say:

| 1. | What measures has it taken to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries stocks from an economic, social and environmental viewpoint in Greece and in the marine fisheries areas? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures has it taken to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries stocks from an economic, social and environmental viewpoint in Greece and in the marine fisheries areas?

| 2. | How can fishing stocks in European and non-European waters of the Mediterranean be protected from unreasonably intensive and illegal fishing by third countries (Turkey, for instance)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How can fishing stocks in European and non-European waters of the Mediterranean be protected from unreasonably intensive and illegal fishing by third countries (Turkey, for instance)?

| 3. | What measures has it taken to harmonise the management and exploitation of the common resources of the Mediterranean and controls and penalties in respect of illegal fishing in international waters so as to prevent stocks being exhausted? Which penalties have been imposed or may be imposed on states which protect or shelter illegal fishing vessels (flying flags of convenience or without any flag)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures has it taken to harmonise the management and exploitation of the common resources of the Mediterranean and controls and penalties in respect of illegal fishing in international waters so as to prevent stocks being exhausted? Which penalties have been imposed or may be imposed on states which protect or shelter illegal fishing vessels (flying flags of convenience or without any flag)?

| 4. | What steps have been taken to enable the Union to extend the fisheries jurisdiction of Member States in the Mediterranean through a multilateral approach involving the other coastal states of the Mediterranean with the aim of achieving the viable management of resources and ecosystems? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps have been taken to enable the Union to extend the fisheries jurisdiction of Member States in the Mediterranean through a multilateral approach involving the other coastal states of the Mediterranean with the aim of achieving the viable management of resources and ecosystems?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 (2), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2550/2000 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of marine resources in the Mediterranean (3), is currently enforced in the Mediterranean and, since June 2000, it ended the derogation allowing Greek trawlers both to use a cod-end mesh size smaller than 40 millimetres (mm) and to operate in very coastal areas (less than 3 Nautical Miles (NM) off the coast or at a depth less than 50 metres (m) whichever is closer). These provisions, if properly implemented and inspected by the Greek Authorities, should be useful to resolve some problems of Greek fisheries.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (4) represents the fishing management framework upon which the Commission bases its proposals for sustainable management of all Community fisheries. This Regulation is an important step forward that allows for a more effective adjustment of fishing capacity, that sets up a multi-annual perspective both for management and recovery plans and that establishes a stronger Community control and enforcement system.

The Commission, conscious that the current Mediterranean Regulation no longer meets the needs of the Mediterranean fisheries, and taking account of the guiding principles of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, issued in October 2003 a proposal for a Regulation that is in line with the reflections presented both in the Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and in its Action Plan (5).

In the Commission's view such a proposal, by putting together technical measures and management of fishing effort, should lead to more responsible and sustainable fisheries in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, by providing for the establishment of national management plans for certain fisheries, the proposal represents a compromise between the need to secure a harmonised Community framework and a flexible approach which may allow taking into account sub-regional differences and specificities. A harmonised Community framework, while considering sub-regional specificities, is a prerequisite not only to ensuring a level playing field but also to putting forward fisheries management proposals in the wider international framework.

Illegal fishing is a problem that may affect not only third country fishing vessels but also Community ones; for example, Greek waters and resources are negatively affected both by the illegal use of explosive and poor compliance with the legal cod-end mesh size in trawl fisheries. These problems must be tackled within the Community, not only at international level.

The outcome and final declaration of the Venice Ministerial Conference, organized by the Commission in November 2003, have provided a strong political basis on which to progress more speedily and effectively towards sustainable fisheries management in the Mediterranean. The extension of fisheries jurisdiction was identified as an important means of achieving this goal.

In particular, the maturing debate of possible coordinated extension of national jurisdictions on open sea together with the likely imminent ratification of the new General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) autonomous budget will allow both conservation and compliance issues to be better addressed in a coordinated manner at Mediterranean level.

---

(1)  See COM(2003) 589, 9.10.2003, proposal for a regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulations (EC) No 2847/93 and (EC) No 973/2001.

(2)  OJ L 171, 6.7.1994.

(3)  OJ L 292, 21.11.2000.

(4)  COM(2001) 135 final.

(5)  COM(2002)535.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/783 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/783

---

(2004/C 84 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0396/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Guantánamo-on-Thames?

This question is being asked in the European press with regard to the situation of foreign prisoners in the UK, who, despite the fact that they have been declared innocent, remain held in the Belmarsh High Security Prison in London, under the provisions of the anti-terrorist laws enacted after 11 September 2001. These laws allow the British authorities to keep foreigners suspected of constituting ‘a threat to national security’ in prison indefinitely, thus violating the European Convention on Human Rights. What is the Commission doing in terms of approaching the UK Government to resolve this serious and intolerable situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

On the basis of information available to the Commission, it appears that the particular situation to which the Honourable Member refers does not fall within the scope of Community law.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/783 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/783

---

(2004/C 84 E/0880)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Legalising irregular migrants working in the Union

Several million irregular immigrants work in the EU, and to date, the European Institutions have not taken any decisions comparable to those of the President of the USA, who has just forwarded to Congress a proposal for a new policy to give millions of irregular workers legal status. Although the implementation of this decision by the US President may in some respects be open to criticism, there is no doubt that it marks a major step forward in resolving an extremely serious economic and humanitarian problem. Has the Commission planned any similar political initiative to legalise the presence of irregular immigrants in the Union? If so, what type of initiative would it be?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In order to implement the Treaty of Amsterdam and the mandate given in Tampere, the Commission has tabled several proposals for directives concerning the admission and the conditions of stay of third-country nationals.

Until now, none of these proposals contained provisions on the regularisation of the legal status of illegal immigrants already within the territory of the European Union and no such proposal is envisaged in the near future.

The Commission has stated in its Communication on immigration, integration and employment (1) that within the context of the common immigration policy the only coherent approach to dealing with illegal residents is to ensure that they return to their country of origin. Some Member States have implemented regularisation measures for illegal residents. Regularisation procedures may be seen as a factor which enables the integration process to develop but also as an encouragement of further illegal immigration.

Bearing in mind these potential impacts, the issue of regularisation will be examined in the study on the links between legal and illegal migration that will be released by the Commission during the present Irish Presidency.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/784 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/784

---

(2004/C 84 E/0881)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0407/04

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   CRAFT Community programmes

Since the 1990s, the European Union has been financing so-called CRAFT projects through its successive Community R + D programmes. The purpose of these projects as to support the needs of SMEs in R + D, facilitate transnational cooperation between SMEs on R + D, and to encourage cooperation cooperation between SMEs and European research.

CRAFT has enabled many SMEs from throughout the European Union to come together to set up R + D projects. Hence its sheer importance.

However, now that Europe has embarked on a multi-annual programme in favour of companies, and particularly SMEs, with the particular goal of simplifying the legislative, administrative and financial measures which concern them, it appears that Europe itself no longer feels this burning obligation. The paperwork required to obtain European aid is more and more complex to handle, and once the submission has been accepted, payment takes a long time, which discourages SMEs. Such, accordingly to my information, is the case of CRAFT.

For that reason, even if strict rules are necessary in order for European funding to be agreed, could the Commission itself not make an effort to achieve administrative simplification, in collaboration with the SMEs, so that all Europe's SMEs can benefit from such programmes, whose importance requires no demonstration?

With particular regard to CRAFT:

| — | Would it not be possible for SMEs to obtain the relevant contracts from the Commission in their own languages, so as to avoid any doubts which may arise from unofficial translations, or the need to use a language which they are not fully cognisant with, even if the contract itself is signed in English? |
| --- | --- |

—

Would it not be possible for SMEs to obtain the relevant contracts from the Commission in their own languages, so as to avoid any doubts which may arise from unofficial translations, or the need to use a language which they are not fully cognisant with, even if the contract itself is signed in English?

| — | Would it not be possible to ask the research centres simply to put in their bills Proforma, and thus save themselves VAT problems? |
| --- | --- |

—

Would it not be possible to ask the research centres simply to put in their bills Proforma, and thus save themselves VAT problems?

| — | Could the Commission not commit itself to a maximum delay in paying-out of three months, since any longer period creates difficulties for the cash offices of SMEs? |
| --- | --- |

—

Could the Commission not commit itself to a maximum delay in paying-out of three months, since any longer period creates difficulties for the cash offices of SMEs?

| — | Would it not be reasonable to reduce the deadlines for signing by the Commission's lawyers to two months for adding possible riders? |
| --- | --- |

—

Would it not be reasonable to reduce the deadlines for signing by the Commission's lawyers to two months for adding possible riders?

| — | Finally, would it not be appropriate to redefine the role of the Scientific Officers as that of mediators, with the obligation to ensure that CRAFT rules are respected, but by helping the SMEs rather than cracking down on them? |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, would it not be appropriate to redefine the role of the Scientific Officers as that of mediators, with the obligation to ensure that CRAFT rules are respected, but by helping the SMEs rather than cracking down on them?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

In relation to the calls for Co-operative Research Projects within the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), the Commission understands the particular needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to achieve an optimal and efficient procedure in processing research project applications and approving those projects which are successful in obtaining Community financing.

With particular regard to the question of the Honourable Member on CRAFT Community Programmes, the Commission would like to indicate the following:

| — | The contracts between the Commission and the Consortia are implemented in English since it is usually chosen as the working language of the Partners involved within the consortia, which average eight in number. Translations of the FP6 model contract are, however, available in all eleven official languages on the Europa and Cordis websites to facilitate the understanding of the contracts by the consortia partners. See: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-group/model-contract/index_en.html or http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm and choose download links within subheading ‘Model contract’ under title Essential Documents). |
| --- | --- |

—

The contracts between the Commission and the Consortia are implemented in English since it is usually chosen as the working language of the Partners involved within the consortia, which average eight in number. Translations of the FP6 model contract are, however, available in all eleven official languages on the Europa and Cordis websites to facilitate the understanding of the contracts by the consortia partners. See: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-group/model-contract/index_en.html or http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm and choose download links within subheading ‘Model contract’ under title Essential Documents).

| — | Under FP5 SME specific activities, Research and Technological Development (RTD) performers (Research Centres) acted as subcontractors to the SME partners. In that context, they invoice the SME the price of their service, thus leading to an incurred cost for the SME partners which the Community reimburses in part. As Proforma invoices do not justify a cost from a financial accounting perspective and as it might open the door to incorrect application of the national legislation of the Member States, RTD performers were requested to provide a proper invoice including VAT. |
| --- | --- |

—

Under FP5 SME specific activities, Research and Technological Development (RTD) performers (Research Centres) acted as subcontractors to the SME partners. In that context, they invoice the SME the price of their service, thus leading to an incurred cost for the SME partners which the Community reimburses in part. As Proforma invoices do not justify a cost from a financial accounting perspective and as it might open the door to incorrect application of the national legislation of the Member States, RTD performers were requested to provide a proper invoice including VAT.

Under FP6, the RTD performers are contractors like the SME partners, that is, direct beneficiaries of the grant awarded by the Community. Accordingly, they charge directly their eligible costs incurred in relation to their activities. No invoices are required of RTD performers under FP6.

| — | For FP6 the Commission has made serious efforts to shorten the time for committing and signing contracts and for approving and processing payments. The Commission is now contractually obliged to make the Community financial contribution to projects as pre-financing within 45 days of the entry into force of the contract and for subsequent payments within 45 days following approval by the Commission of the reports relating to each reporting period. The co-ordinator is thereafter contractually obliged to distribute the Community contribution to the other consortium partners on the basis of the provisions of their consortium agreement. In a case where the deadline is not met by the Commission interest payments can be claimed by the contractors via the Co-ordinator. |
| --- | --- |

—

For FP6 the Commission has made serious efforts to shorten the time for committing and signing contracts and for approving and processing payments. The Commission is now contractually obliged to make the Community financial contribution to projects as pre-financing within 45 days of the entry into force of the contract and for subsequent payments within 45 days following approval by the Commission of the reports relating to each reporting period. The co-ordinator is thereafter contractually obliged to distribute the Community contribution to the other consortium partners on the basis of the provisions of their consortium agreement. In a case where the deadline is not met by the Commission interest payments can be claimed by the contractors via the Co-ordinator.

| — | FP6 has introduced a new financial and legal framework for SME activities. By contrast with other FP6 instruments, there is no collective financial responsibility among the partners of SME activities, thus leading to the implementation of controls required by the Financial Regulation (1) of the Community. However, the Commission intends to significantly reduce the cycle time from project proposal selection to contract preparation, signature and payment of the Community pre-financing. |
| --- | --- |

—

FP6 has introduced a new financial and legal framework for SME activities. By contrast with other FP6 instruments, there is no collective financial responsibility among the partners of SME activities, thus leading to the implementation of controls required by the Financial Regulation (1) of the Community. However, the Commission intends to significantly reduce the cycle time from project proposal selection to contract preparation, signature and payment of the Community pre-financing.

| — | The Commission aim at providing assistance to SME's in a way which responds best to their needs. In order to facilitate the constitution of consortia and the elaboration of proposals for research contracts, the Commission contributes actively through the organisation or the participation to information sessions and brokerage events, and the maintenance of help desks on technical, legal or financial issues related to FP6 contracts, within the limits and full respect of financial and management requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission aim at providing assistance to SME's in a way which responds best to their needs. In order to facilitate the constitution of consortia and the elaboration of proposals for research contracts, the Commission contributes actively through the organisation or the participation to information sessions and brokerage events, and the maintenance of help desks on technical, legal or financial issues related to FP6 contracts, within the limits and full respect of financial and management requirements.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/786 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/786

---

(2004/C 84 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0408/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands

Directive 2002/49/EC (1) on the management of environmental noise requires every Member State to make environmental noise maps for all major airports which have more than 50 000 movements per year.

Correspondence between the Netherlands Government and the Second Chamber shows that the Netherlands is planning to make an environmental noise map and draw up an accompanying action plan solely in respect of Schiphol Airport.

Movement data provided by the Central Statistical Office in 2001 show a different picture. The airports in Rotterdam (92 874), Groningen (61 324) and Maastricht (58 534) are already above the 50 000 limit, while Lelystad, with 47 135 movements, has almost reached the critical threshold.

Can the European Commission publish a definitive list of all the airports in the Netherlands which have more than 50 000 movements?

What will the Commission do if the Netherlands remains in breach of its obligations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has been interested to note the Written Question from the Honourable Member concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (2) in the Netherlands.

In accordance with 7(1) of the Directive, Member States have until 30 June 2005 to inform the Commission about the airports situated within their territory which are covered by the scope of the Directive. These airports are defined in Article 3 (p) of the Directive as ‘civil airports, designated by the Member State, which have more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft’.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 14, Member States have until 18 July 2004 to transpose Directive 2002/49/EC into their national legal order. To date, the Commission has not received notification of transposition from the Netherlands.

In view of the above, the Commission does not presently have the list of Dutch airports covered by the scope of Directive 2002/49/EC but considers that it is not appropriate to launch infringement proceedings against the Dutch Government. It wishes to thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to this particular point and will see to it that the provisions of the Directive on environmental noise are applied by the Member States to all infrastructures and agglomerations covered by its scope.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(2)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/787 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/787

---

(2004/C 84 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Aer Rianta

Is the Commission aware of, and is it monitoring, the Irish Government's plans to break up Aer Rianta, the state-owned company responsible for the operation, management and development of Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports? Does the Commission believe that plans to transfer the entire Aer Rianta debt to Dublin Airport comply with Article 92 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Although not aware of an assumption of debt as described by the Honourable Member, the Commission is aware from press reports that Aer Rianta is currently building a new terminal and other supporting infrastructures at Cork Airport. It is also reported that the cost of this investment is to be borne by the company as a whole and it is presumed that it is to this financial arrangement that the Honourable Member is referring.

The Commission will keep a watching brief on this situation to decide if an action under State aid rules is appropriate.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/787 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/787

---

(2004/C 84 E/0884)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   The regulation of exportation of timber from Indonesia

On the western and central islands of Indonesia including Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, organised groups have been illegally logging parts of the rain forests and exporting timber without regard for the environment and the local communities that depend on it. West Papua is now in danger of being targeted by these groups.

Can the Commission outline what measures are being taken to ensure that timber imported into the EU has been correctly logged, recorded and legally exported according to the laws of Indonesia and the trade agreements operating between the EU, Indonesia and the World Trade Organisation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

With the exception of timber species covered under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) there is currently no Community legislation which would only allow the importation into the EU of legally harvested timber. Furthermore there are no multilateral agreements, including World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, which directly address the issue of trade in illegally harvested timber.

The Commission set out a number of measures to address illegal logging and associated trade in its Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan (1), adopted in 2003 and discussed in the Parliament's Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee. Amongst these measures is a proposal for the EU to enter into voluntary FLEGT Partnership Agreements with timber exporting countries. Under such agreements only timber from these countries with a legality ‘certificate’ would be allowed entry into the EU. In the Communication the Commission also stated that it would examine other potential legislative options.

Indonesia has expressed interest in such a voluntary FLEGT partnership and is working with the Commission in the design of a major project to help it address the problem of illegal logging. The Commission intends to put forward in 2004 a proposal for a Regulation which would allow the implementation of the voluntary FLEGT certificate scheme at EU borders.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 251 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/788 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/788

---

(2004/C 84 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   The treatment of North Korean refugees in the People's Republic of China

A group of 12 North Korean refugees have recently been arrested by the Chinese authorities in Beijing and Quindao, (a port on the east coast, south east of Beijing). If they are sent back to North Korea they face prosecution, torture, imprisonment and even execution for daring to question their leader Kim Jung II.

These refugees are often helped by Chinese Christians who risk their own freedom trying to help them to safety.

Mindful of the fact that China has signed the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, and is therefore bound by the principle of not returning people to a country where they face serious persecution, which has been made explicit by the horrific allegations in the UK press of the systematic use of gas chambers to execute men, women and children, will the Commission condemn North Korea's blatant flouting of its international obligations and argue that such behaviour will not be tolerated?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

North Korea is currently a major concern for the international community including the European Union. The Commission has various channels through which it can meet representatives of the North Korean Government and put forward its concerns. Human rights issues, including the situation of North Korean refugees on the border with China, are systematically raised during these regular political contacts, on the last occasion during a round of formal discussions held in December 2003 in Pyongyang. The Commission has consistently expressed to the North Korean authorities its concern about the treatment of these people once returned by China to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). It has urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental rights of these citizens.

Furthermore, the EU tabled a resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK at the 2003 United Nations (UN) Commission of Human Rights which was adopted on 16 April 2003. The EU is prepared to table another resolution in 2004 underlining its continuing concern.

The EU is conducting a bilateral dialogue on human rights with China and the issue of the North Korean refugees in China has also been systematically raised in that context. The EU's constant position has been to call on the Chinese authorities to handle the issue in a moderate and constructive manner and to apply, therefore, the non-repatriation principle in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to have access to the North Korea-China border area. Most recently, the EU recalled this position to the Chinese authorities during the last round of the dialogue on human rights held in Dublin on 26/27 February 2004. Moreover, on 18 February 2004, the EU Troika carried out a démarche to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the arrest and detention in China of the DPRK citizens who had left their country and urged China not to forcibly repatriate them to the DPRK.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/789 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/789

---

(2004/C 84 E/0886)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/04

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Security of EC cards

Fraud involving cash dispensers in the EU is on the increase. There have been a number of cases recently where data from EC cards has been transmitted from a cash dispenser set up specially for this purpose and copied onto new cards. Only German EC cards contain extra built-in security features preventing this kind of abuse. The replacement of magnetic strip cards with chip cards will take some time to complete.

Is the Commission planning to draw up measures to introduce such security features throughout the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the various techniques used by criminals to collect card data from automated teller machines (ATMs) in the EU. These techniques include the setting up of fake ATMs or alterations to genuine ATMs with the specific purpose of copying data from the magnetic stripe of Community cards. After copying the magnetic stripe and capturing the PIN code, criminals generally transfer the data obtained onto blank cards (‘white plastic’), which are fraudulently used mostly in unattended ATMs or terminals.

According to the information received by the Commission, the security features described by the Honourable Member can prevent this kind of abuse and have been in place already for many years in Germany. They consist of a modification in the magnetic stripe of the card and an additional device to be installed in the ATM. To the Commission's knowledge, such a solution is, for the time being, used only on cards issued by German banks and only in order to perform cash withdrawals at ATMs located in Germany. Such security features cannot be detected by terminals (POS) located in German shops or other merchant terminals (e.g. petrol stations or vending machines).

The EU banking industry has analysed this technology in detail. Their conclusion was that it is technologically less advanced than the chip, and therefore was not retained as their preferred solution. Instead, the EU payment card schemes and banks committed to introducing chip cards in all Member States by 2005 in order to prevent fraud with counterfeit cards. When new POS terminals and ATMs capable of reading chip cards will be installed in all Member States, the criminal modus operandi described above will no longer be possible.

It is possible that in some countries the migration to chip cards will take more time to complete, given the current level of progress, the number of cards to be re-issued and the ATMs and POS terminals to be replaced or modified. However, even in this case, banks are reluctant to introduce throughout the Internal Market the security features existing on German cards and ATMs as an interim solution. In fact, such features would require yet another adaptation of ATMs and replacement of cards, which would add further costs to the migration to the chip and is likely to slow it down further.

For these reasons the Commission is not planning measures to introduce the security features used in Germany. Instead, the Commission's objective is to ensure that the deployment of chip cards and terminals in the EU takes place as soon as possible. In 2004 the Commission intends to issue a Report to the Parliament and the Council on the EU Fraud Prevention Action Plan 2001-2003. The Commission also supports projects on solutions using chip cards for authentication purposes under the Information Society Technologies (IST) Research Programme.

Rather than mandating detailed security features, the role of the Commission is to create strong incentives for payment providers to implement such features, if necessary by setting liability rules. Currently there is an increasing number of cases where cards are counterfeited and the PIN code is captured using electronic devices. The Commission will examine these issues in the context of its forthcoming proposal on a New Legal Framework for Payments in the Internal Market.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/790 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/790

---

(2004/C 84 E/0887)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Exports of peat to Italy

Peat is one of the most common bulk materials used in horticulture. Countries rich in peat, such as Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, export a large amount of this material to countries such as Italy, which have little peat of their own. For many years now, a large number of Italian companies have been importing peat from those countries by sea. However, there are problems which hamper the import of this material by sea. Because of difficulties in Italian ports (e.g. labour problems, high costs and charges), such materials are now transported across Europe by road. Statistics show that 76 % of Italian peat imports from Germany, 79 % of peat imports from the Netherlands and an astounding 100 % of peat imports from France are transported by road, although transport by sea would be perfectly feasible, cheaper and less harmful to the environment.

What are the Commission's views on this situation?

Does the Commission actively encourage sea transport?

Is the Commission giving consideration to the drafting of a proposal for a Community Directive whereby sea transport would be given preference over cross-Europe road transport, which is expensive and harmful and pollutes the environment?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission believes that the exporters of German, French and Dutch peat to Italy choose the mode of transport which in their commercial assessment is the most appropriate one. The ultimate destination of peat in Italy is likely to be far away from ports and any assessment, therefore, has to take into consideration, ‘inter alia’, costs in ports, loading, unloading and transport to final destination.

The Commission has for a number of years pursued an active policy of promoting short sea shipping which is becoming more and more a viable alternative to road transport.

Furthermore, the recent Community guidelines to State aid to maritime transport (C(2004)43) include in their chapter 10 the possibility for the Commission to approve certain aid to short sea shipping.

Within the basic concept of users' free choice of the transport mode, the main emphasis on promoting the sea alternative is not put on direct legislative measures but on offering and encouraging sustainable and safe ways for those products that can be carried by various modes, such as peat in bulk.

The main objective of the Commission's policy is to maintain sustainability in the European transport system now and in the future. The policy has been outlined in the Commission Communication on the development of the Short Sea Shipping mode (1) and Programme for the promotion of this mode (2).

---

(1)  COM(1999) 317 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 155 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/791 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/791

---

(2004/C 84 E/0888)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0448/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Research on non-human primates in Münster, Germany

The Commission has stated in the past that Directive 86/609/EEC (1) does not provide sufficient controls to safeguard the welfare of non-human primates. The Commission's amended proposals with regard to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development stipulated that research activities must respect the protection of animals in accordance with Community law, and participants in research projects must conform to current legislation and regulations in the countries where research will be carried out.

Following a five-month investigation, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has alleged the cruel treatment of non-primates by staff in the Covance animal research laboratories in Münster Germany. Given that the Ministry for Environment in North Rhine-Westfalia has initiated a procedure to withdraw Covance's licence to keep and experiment on laboratory animals, will the Commission condemn Covance for its treatment of animals and denounce the use of non-primates in research within the wider European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The use of non-human primates is among the most sensitive topics in relation to animal research. Indeed, the Commission has been informed about the treatment of non-human primates at the Covance animal research laboratories in Münster (in North Rhine-Westphalia) in Germany. A subsequent Commission investigation showed that the German authorities have swiftly taken appropriate action. Therefore, the Commission currently sees no need to conduct further investigations in this matter

The Commission has initiated a revision of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. The aim of the revision is to strengthen the legislation in the area of animal experimentation in the EU and to ensure that the animals still used in experiments will receive appropriate care and humane treatment. Among other things, the revision is looking into the requirements and conditions for the authorisation of experiments, personnel and establishments, and inspections of establishments which breed, supply or use laboratory animals.

The Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) has signalled the continued need for non-human primates in biomedical research (2). However, the SSC also stressed that each testing proposal involving non-human primates should be justified on a case-by-case basis.

The use of non-human primates in experiments is one of the issues that will be thoroughly reviewed during the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC. To have the necessary background information, the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw), to issue an opinion on the welfare of non-human primates used in experiments (3). The Opinion was adopted on 17 December 2002 and is now used as a background document for the revision.

---

(1)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(2)  The Scientific Steering Committee: The need for non-human primates in biomedical research', statement adopted 4/5 April 2002. The document is available on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out253_en.pdf

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_scahaw_en.html

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/792 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/792

---

(2004/C 84 E/0889)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Counterfeit banknotes

The European Central Bank has stated that 550 000 counterfeit euro banknotes were withdrawn from circulation in 2003. The banknotes withdrawn included the following denominations: EUR 50 (52 %), EUR 20 (30 %) and EUR 100 (12,7 %). Can the Commission indicate what initiatives it has proposed or intends to propose to curtail this phenomenon, and the total amount of euros withdrawn from circulation?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The protection of the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting is carried out jointly by the competent national authorities, the European Central Bank, Europol and the Commission. The roles and responsibilities of these European institutions and bodies are complementary.

With a view to protecting euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting, Community legislation has been adopted including, ‘inter alia’, the following:

| — | legislation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1);

| — | legislation increasing protection of euro banknotes and coins by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting (2); and |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation increasing protection of euro banknotes and coins by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting (2); and

| — | legislation establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme (Pericles) for the protection of the euro (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

legislation establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme (Pericles) for the protection of the euro (3).

These mechanisms guarantee strong protection for the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting, through enhanced collaboration across countries and disciplines and intense training at national, European and international level.

The Commission is currently committing significant resources to the complete implementation of the Community acquis regarding the protection of the euro in the new Member States. Particular emphasis is put on combating the rising threat of euro counterfeits coming from countries outside the EU. The establishment of joint investigation teams among Member States, with the involvement of Europol, is enhancing actions by law enforcement agencies.

The Commission, in collaboration with Member States and the other European institutions and bodies, is also working to ensure complete implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, particularly Article 6 regarding the obligations of credit institutions.

Finally, communication action is being intensified by the European Central Bank and the Commission, as regards the protection of the euro.

The Commission will continue to take all necessary initiatives to reinforce the protection of euro banknotes and coins against fraud and counterfeiting.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, Council Decision of 29 April 1999 extending Europol's mandate to deal with forgery of money, OJ C 149, 28.5.1999.

(2)  Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000 on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro, OJ L 140, 14.6.2000.

(3)  Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of euro against counterfeiting OJ L 339, 21.12.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/793 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/793

---

(2004/C 84 E/0890)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   INFO 2000 programme

The multiannual Community programme INFO 2000, covering a period of four years, aimed to encourage the development of the European multimedia content industry and to contribute to the professional, social and cultural development of European citizens.

Can the Commission indicate what actions to support the programme have been initiated, giving details of the sums allocated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The INFO 2000 programme to stimulate the supply and use of multimedia was adopted in 1996 (1) and ended in 1999. A final evaluation of the programme and its impact assessment was carried out in the year 2000. The results were communicated to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in May 2001 (2). The evaluation report is available at: (http://www.cordis.lu/econtent/studies/studies.htm). In the four years of the programme implementation, 149 actions were supported for EUR 68,6 million, broken down as follows:

Expenditure under the INFO 2000 Programme (1996-1999)

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | Expenditure |
| Action line 1:
  Stimulating demand and raising awareness | 15,6 |
| Action line 2:
  Exploiting Europe's public sector information | 13,8 |
| 2.1 | Developing policies to access and exploit European public sector information |

(million euros)

Expenditure

Action line 1:

Stimulating demand and raising awareness

15,6

Action line 2:

Exploiting Europe's public sector information

13,8

2.1

Developing policies to access and exploit European public sector information

0,9

| 2.2 | Linking directories to public sector information |
| --- | --- |

2.2

Linking directories to public sector information

3,2

| 2.3 | Making use of content resources in the public sector |
| --- | --- |

2.3

Making use of content resources in the public sector

9,6

Action line 3:

Triggering European multimedia potential

34,2

| 3.1 | Catalysing high-quality multimedia content |
| --- | --- |

3.1

Catalysing high-quality multimedia content

31,2

| 3.2 | Trading multimedia intellectual property rights |
| --- | --- |

3.2

Trading multimedia intellectual property rights

3,0

| Action | line 4: Support actions |
| --- | --- |

Action

line 4: Support actions

5.0

| 4.1 | Observing and analysing the multimedia content market |
| --- | --- |

4.1

Observing and analysing the multimedia content market

2,9

| 4.2 | Spreading the use of multimedia content standards |
| --- | --- |

4.2

Spreading the use of multimedia content standards

0,6

| 4.3 | Encouraging skills development at European level |
| --- | --- |

4.3

Encouraging skills development at European level

1,5

Total

68,6

---

(1)  Council Decision 96/339/EC of 20 May 1996 adopting a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000), OJ L 129, 30.5.1996.

(2)  COM(2001) 276 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/794 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/794

---

(2004/C 84 E/0891)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Guinea-Bissau — Commission support

In reply to my question E-3129/03 (1), the Commission revealed that within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement, it would be exploring how to exercise a positive influence on developments in Guinea-Bissau.

The press report that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) recently set up an emergency fund to help Guinea-Bissau re-establish the social services affected by the virtually permanent state of crisis that has prevailed since 1998.

Part of the USD 18,3 million made available will be used to pay workers in the health and teaching sectors, which have been rendered inoperable due to lack of funds.

The Netherlands and Portugal are amongst the countries which have already contributed to the UNDP Fund, so that life in Guinea-Bissau can regain a certain degree of normalcy and the legislative elections of March 2004, the first for four years, will not be cancelled.

The Council, for its part, has recently issued a statement on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, which is overall positive and hopeful.

What conclusions has the Commission reached as to the best way to exercise more influence over developments?

What specific measures has it taken or is it going to take in this respect?

Following the census establishing the electoral register, is the Commission providing human and material support for the holding of legislative elections, so that they will be able to take place on the scheduled date, 28 March 2004, and thus help provide the democratic solutions that will enable the country to get out of the prolonged crisis into which it has been plunged? In what ways does the Commission intend to do this?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

First, the Commission would like to stress that it certainly shares the assessment of the situation set out in the Council conclusions to which the Honourable Member refers.

The conclusions arrived at following the consultations relate to the honouring of commitments made by authorities in Guinea-Bissau, i.e. commitments concerning:

| — | the transition programme and the holding of legislative elections (28 March 2004); |
| --- | --- |

—

the transition programme and the holding of legislative elections (28 March 2004);

| — | adoption of measures to put public finances in order; |
| --- | --- |

—

adoption of measures to put public finances in order;

| — | confirmation of moves to restore an independent judiciary and re-establish civilian control over the armed forces. |
| --- | --- |

—

confirmation of moves to restore an independent judiciary and re-establish civilian control over the armed forces.

The EU will monitor the situation very closely over a period of three months, with regular monthly reports.

The Commission will monitor and assess in detail, both inside and outside Guinea-Bissau, the authorities' commitments discussed in the consultations, especially those commitments referred to above. Decisions will not be taken until this monitoring phase is complete.

Cooperation will continue as usual during this consultation period.

With regard to Community support for legislative elections, the Commission started in July 2003 to implement a financing agreement allocating EUR 1,2 million from the 9th European Development Fund to support elections. Funding will go towards equipment, consumables, logistical administrative support, awareness-raising measures, training and technical assistance. The project is now underway and is being implemented in accordance with the funding agreement.

---

(1)  See page 731.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/795 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/795

---

(2004/C 84 E/0892)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Europe — terrorism

Replying to my question E-1992/03 (1), Commissioner António Vitorino said that Europe's response to terrorism went beyond merely assessing the existence of a threat, and highlighted the need to take into consideration the factors underlying terrorism.

He believed that the Commission could play a more prominent role in this highly sensitive area, and that the Union should use all the means available to it: development, trade, justice and home affairs policy and other aspects of the Barcelona process to combat terrorism, alongside measures in the security field.

In practical and operational terms, what does the Commission believe its proper role should be? Does it believe that there is agreement between the Member States on this?

How does the Commission assess the current use being made of the instruments available to the Union? What does it think the priorities are with a view to optimising their use?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Role of the Commission in operational terms/Consensus amongst Member States

Generally, the EU facilitates operational cooperation in the fight against terrorism through establishing improved forms of information exchange among the police and intelligence communities tasked with the fight against terrorism. Regarding its specific involvement in operational measures, the Commission actively participates in the relevant working parties within the Council structures in which measures for fighting terrorism are developed. The Commission participates, ‘inter alia’, in the Terrorist Working Group (TWG) in the Council that assesses the terrorist threat to the EU every six months and is also tasked with defining new co-operation instruments.

In the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), several legislative measures pertaining to operational co-operation in the fight against terrorism have been adopted, for example the Council Framework Decision of 13 of June 2002 on combating terrorism (2) and the Council Recommendation of 26 April 2002 on multi-national ad-hoc teams for exchanging information on terrorists (3) in the pre-criminal investigative phase.

The implementation of the Council Framework Decision will facilitate police and judicial co-operation by aligning criminal law in the Member States. It will also contribute to closer co-operation with third countries and to the preparation and implementation of international instruments related to the prevention and suppression of terrorism.

In conformity with the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, such legal instruments are always adopted unanimously by the Member States, which reflects consensus amongst the Member States.

In relation to co-operation with the countries of North Africa and the Middle East in JHA aspects, following the recommendations of the Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Marseilles (November 2000), a framework document on good governance and the rule of law was adopted by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU and its 12 Mediterranean Partners during their meeting in Valencia in April 2002. The document endorsed the idea of a regional programme in the field of justice, in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism as well as co-operation in the treatment of issues relating to the social integration of migrants, migration and movement of persons.

The focus of the programme is to encourage reform of and co-operation between judicial systems, combating organised crime and drugs, and ensuring a joint approach to the management of migratory flows, without losing sight of the overall balance of the partnership, notably with regard to the immigration issue.

The programme has a total budget of EUR 6 million and will be implemented for three years.

Three types of actions will be covered by the programme:

| (a) | Training of magistrates, lawyers and clerks and establishment of a permanent Euro-Mediterranean network of legal training, aimed at directors of schools or Magistrates' Training Institutes (Judges and Prosecutors), of lawyers and justice officials, of legal administrative staff; or persons responsible for the training of magistrates, lawyers and clerks. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Training of magistrates, lawyers and clerks and establishment of a permanent Euro-Mediterranean network of legal training, aimed at directors of schools or Magistrates' Training Institutes (Judges and Prosecutors), of lawyers and justice officials, of legal administrative staff; or persons responsible for the training of magistrates, lawyers and clerks. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions.

| (b) | Training for police officers and other officials with relevant specialisations in regional police co-operation, addressed to persons responsible for central services dealing with police and international cooperation, directors of schools, academies or police training institutes. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions and a contract signed with the European Police College (CEPOL) in the last week of February 2004. A first session ‘combating and fighting terrorism’ will take place in France in May. Police officers from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Italy, Spain and France will participate (as well as probably, from Egypt). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Training for police officers and other officials with relevant specialisations in regional police co-operation, addressed to persons responsible for central services dealing with police and international cooperation, directors of schools, academies or police training institutes. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions and a contract signed with the European Police College (CEPOL) in the last week of February 2004. A first session ‘combating and fighting terrorism’ will take place in France in May. Police officers from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Italy, Spain and France will participate (as well as probably, from Egypt).

| (c) | Monitoring, analysing, and forecasting migratory flows in the EU and Mediterranean Partners with a view to helping the Partners in their efforts to develop and implement migration policies. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions and a contract signed with the European University Institute on 1 February 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Monitoring, analysing, and forecasting migratory flows in the EU and Mediterranean Partners with a view to helping the Partners in their efforts to develop and implement migration policies. EUR 2 million from the programme were allocated for these actions and a contract signed with the European University Institute on 1 February 2004.

Evaluation of the current instruments/Improvement of them

The usefulness of counter-terrorism measures taken by the European Union is dependent on their enforcement by the different Member States.

The Commission is soon to report on the implementation of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002.

The recently established mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism (Council Decision of 28 November 2003) in which the Commission participates, identifies the capacities of the national legal frameworks to combat terrorism and assesses co-operation amongst the different Member States' administrations and bodies relating to terrorist activities, in particular between judicial, law enforcement and intelligence services. It also assesses co-operation at international level and the implementation of the EU and United Nations (UN) measures to counter terrorism, including the implementation of the EU Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 70.

(2)  OJ L 164, 22.6.2002.

(3)  Document 57156/02 Enfopol 19 Rev. 6.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/797 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/797

---

(2004/C 84 E/0893)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Competition in the glass sector

Is the Commission aware that EU glass manufacturers face two kinds of unfair competition? First, they face competition from the plastics industry who have been set far lower recycling targets under the Packaging and Waste Directives than those set for the glass industry. Secondly, from glass manufacturers in the accession states who have a long-term derogation from having to meet environmental standards arising from the implementation of the Kyoto Agreement.

Will the Commission be vigilant in ensuring that the implementation of these desirable Directives does not cause unfair competition by allowing competitors to escape obligations that should equally be placed upon them? If necessary, will the Commission propose the necessary rectifying legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The influence of recycling targets on the competition between various packaging materials does not depend on the level of the targets but on the costs related to recycling. The recycling costs per tonne are substantially higher for plastics than for glass and the use of secondary glass also saves costs to buy primary raw materials to a higher extent than is the case for plastics. Even though the recycling targets are different for the various materials, it is therefore difficult to evaluate whether there is an effect on competition between the materials and what material would get more favourable conditions. However, if there is any such effect, it is likely to be small compared to other factors influencing competition such as production costs, consumer convenience etc.

The Commission proposal (1) for new recycling targets was based on the view that all packaging materials should contribute to reducing their environmental impacts through recycling levels reflecting their specific costs and benefits. The levels of the recycling targets were extensively discussed by the Parliament and the Council during the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2004/12/EC of 11 February 2004 (2). There are currently no reasons to propose a modification of the targets.

The EU legislation that allows the European Union to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol does not foresee any derogation for Accession States.

---

(1)  Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 94/6 2/EC on packaging and packaging waste, COM(2004)127 final.

(2)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/E, OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/798 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/798

---

(2004/C 84 E/0894)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Commission open competitions

Regarding the open competition for Commission vacancies, what criteria are used to select successful candidates?

Do these criteria include the nationality of the candidate?

Does the Commission have targets for the number of successful candidates from each Member State? If so, what are these targets now and also after the enlargement of the EU?

Could the Commission provide the results of the successful candidates for the open competition by nationality for 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

Commission vacancies are first published internally in order to provide the possibility of internal mobility for existing officials. If this publication does not result in the identification of a suitable internal candidate or candidates, recourse can then be made to the results of open competitions.

Successful candidatures from these competitions are assessed in order to identify those whose profile corresponds the most closely to the requirements of the vacancy notice which is based on the job description of the post concerned. The criteria used are the field covered by the competition (e.g. law, economics etc.), the candidates' education/professional training and professional experience and, where appropriate, linguistic knowledge.

The basis of recruitment is set out in Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that:

| | Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities. |
| --- | --- |

Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities.

| | Officials shall be selected without distinction as to race, political, philosophical or religious beliefs, sex or sexual orientation and without reference to their marital status or family situation. |
| --- | --- |

Officials shall be selected without distinction as to race, political, philosophical or religious beliefs, sex or sexual orientation and without reference to their marital status or family situation.

| | No posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State. |
| --- | --- |

No posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.

As is made clear by the last sentence of this article, the Commission cannot reserve or earmark a post for successful candidates of a specific nationality and thus make the nationality of a candidate one of the determining factors for the selection of a person for this post. However, the Institutions, including the Commission, must also be mindful of their obligation to recruit on ‘ ... the broadest possible geographical basis ...’. This means that the Institutions try to ensure that there is a reasonable number of nationals of each Member State working within the Institutions. The Court of First Instance has given a clear interpretation of this rule (1): under the Staff Regulations, nationality considerations may be invoked only to distinguish between candidates whose qualifications are substantially equivalent.

A Council Regulation can derogate from the provisions of the Staff Regulations, for example in order to permit the filling of vacant posts by the appointment of candidates of specific nationalities. Such ‘derogation regulations’ have traditionally been adopted by the Council on the occasion of the accession of new Member States. That is the case with the present enlargement where the Council is in the process of adopting a Regulation which will provide that, ‘ ... until 31 December 2010 vacant posts may be filled, within the limit of the number allotted, taking into account budgetary discussions, by appointment of nationals of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia after the actual date of accession of the countries concerned’. The Council Regulation thus aims to provide for a fair and balanced representation of the nationals of the 10 new Member States in the staff of the Institutions.

The Commission does not have ρ re-determined targets for the number of successful candidates, by nationality, for existing Member States. It is only in the context of enlargement that such overall targets for recruitment are established (see below). In this instance, the Commission decided (2), on the basis of objective criteria (population size, weighted vote in Council, number of seats of a Member State in Parliament) and a clear methodology, that nationals of the new Member States should hold 3 441 posts by the end of the transition period (that is December 2010) set out in the Council Regulation. The results of reference to the criteria and methodology are seen in the indicative recruitment targets that have been published:

Indicative recruitment targets

| | Total staff |
| --- | --- |
| Malta | 83 |
| Cyprus | 110 |
| Estonia | 117 |
| Slovenia | 134 |
| Latvia | 155 |
| Lithuania | 241 |
| Slovakia | 279 |
| Hungary | 489 |
| Czech Republic | 492 |
| Poland | 1 341 |
| Total | 3 441 |

Total staff

Malta

83

Cyprus

110

Estonia

117

Slovenia

134

Latvia

155

Lithuania

241

Slovakia

279

Hungary

489

Czech Republic

492

Poland

1 341

Total

3 441

It should be noted that achievement of these indicative targets is and will depend on the budgetary authority confirming that the additional resources required to meet the measured needs arising from enlargement of the Union by 10 Member States will be granted. If the establishment plan is not increased year on year according to the forecasts of needs, the share of posts for nationals of new Member States' would obviously have to be decreased accordingly with consequent implications for overall performance of the Commission.

The results of successful candidatures in open competitions by nationality for 2001, 2002 and 2003 are given in the annexe which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  Decision 22/03/1995 Kotzonis/CES (T-586/93, Rec. p. II-665, RecFP p. II-203).

(2)  Communication of 19 February 2003, C (2003) 436.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/800 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/800

---

(2004/C 84 E/0895)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Blue Dragon

Could the Commission confirm if any of the OLAF investigators involved in the Blue Dragon investigation were amongst the 12 former UCLAF staff moved from OLAF to the Commission in 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that three OLAF staff members concerned initially with questions relating to the ‘Blue Dragon’ case had earlier been staff members of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) and subsequently left OLAF for posts in the Commission in 2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/800 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/800

---

(2004/C 84 E/0896)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   EU dairy sector: Argentina and the WTO ‘peace clause’

Following the expiry of the WTO ‘peace clause’ on 31 December 2003, Argentina has already threatened to bring proceedings against the EU before the WTO's dispute settlement body in relation to Community subsidies to the dairy sector.

Does the Commission believe that the threats from Argentina might at some stage jeopardise the recently reformed Community system?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

With regard to the expiry of the Peace Clause, the Commission maintains the following position: World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members' use of litigation in an attempt to challenge subsidies, granted in conformity with the Agreement on Agriculture, risks undermining comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at concluding an agreement acceptable to all Members.

The Commission too has concerns about certain export practices such as State Trading Enterprises (STEs) operating in the milk sector. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Bill 2001 may have replaced the New Zealand Dairy Board by a company which controls 98 % of that country's milk and assumed the Board's role and sole exporter status but, because of the statutory privileges conferred on it by the Bill it remains, de jure and de facto, a State Trading Enterprise. The Bill maintains the company's right to licences to export to designated markets like the USA, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Japan and the EU, until the beginning of 2011 in some cases. In addition to the right to all export licences to some of these designated markets, the company has the sole right to export to such markets under the tariff rate quotas opened by those countries.

Article XVII of the GATT and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII obliges Members to notify annually non-governmental enterprises, including marketing boards, which have been granted exclusive or special rights or privileges including statutory powers, in the exercise of which they influence through their sales the level or direction of exports. Members should ensure the maximum transparency possible in their notification so as to permit a clear appreciation of the manner of operation of the enterprises notified and the effects of their operations on international trade. The last notification from New Zealand was on 20 July 2001 which indicated that The NZDB may continue to be notified as a STE but further analysis on this question is needed'. Since then the company which replaced the NZDB has expanded its share of the world market for dairy products dramatically. The details will be sent directly to the Honourable Member.

The Commission's concerns are due to the statutory monopoly of a single company on a significant part of preferential world trade in the dairy sector, the consequent potential of cross subsidisation under such an arrangement, the effect of a single desk seller on world market price formation under these circumstances and the absence of the transparency required by Article XVII of the WTO rules.

However a strategic choice has to be made by Members, and in particular the export-oriented ones, between two alternative routes which are largely mutually exclusive: either they believe that multilateral negotiations are the way forward to a fair and market-oriented trading system, or they believe WTO litigation is the way forward.

The Commission is convinced that the consistency between the EU commitments under WTO and its domestic support policy will be strengthened even further in the perspective of continued common agricultural policy (CAP) reform.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/801 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/801

---

(2004/C 84 E/0897)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Community warning on Spanish productivity

The Commission claims that Spanish labour productivity is poor, ‘inter alia’ thanks to the low levels of education amongst the population and the slowness with which Spain is making the move to a knowledge-based economy.

This assessment has caused some surprise, and Spaniards would like to know more about the specific factors which led the Commission to reach it.

What parameters were used to arrive at these conclusions, and in what sense does the Commission think that dialogue on the issue would help narrow the gap between conceptual positions on the issue of productivity in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

In the Implementation Report of the 2003-2005 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs), the Commission stresses in the introductory paragraph of the Spanish note the fact that the ‘poor labour productivity also linked to the relatively low education levels of the population and the slow transition to a knowledge-based economy raises concerns about the long-term performance of the economy’.

This assessment is based on the three following elements:

| — | Labour productivity per hours worked in Spain is below the EU-15 average level (1)). Moreover, the annual percentage growth of labour productivity per p remains below the EU-15 performance, as is the case since 1997. The very rapid has certainly had a negative impact on labour productivity. However, the latter the performances as regards the transition to the knowledge-based economy. In between the low level of productivity and the need to strengthen the knowledgealready identified as a key challenge for Spain in the 2003-2005 BEPGs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Labour productivity per hours worked in Spain is below the EU-15 average level (1)). Moreover, the annual percentage growth of labour productivity per p remains below the EU-15 performance, as is the case since 1997. The very rapid has certainly had a negative impact on labour productivity. However, the latter the performances as regards the transition to the knowledge-based economy. In between the low level of productivity and the need to strengthen the knowledgealready identified as a key challenge for Spain in the 2003-2005 BEPGs.

3,8 % of the EU-15 erson employed still employment growth is also influenced by this respect, the link based economy was

| — | Although the educational attainment of the Spanish population, as measured by the percentage of the population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education, has progressed quickly in the last decade, it is still below the EU average (63,4 % as against 74 % in the EU-15 in 2003) and public spending in education as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) remains among the lowest in the EU (4,43 % in 2000 as compared to 4,93 % in the EU-15). |
| --- | --- |

—

Although the educational attainment of the Spanish population, as measured by the percentage of the population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education, has progressed quickly in the last decade, it is still below the EU average (63,4 % as against 74 % in the EU-15 in 2003) and public spending in education as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) remains among the lowest in the EU (4,43 % in 2000 as compared to 4,93 % in the EU-15).

| — | As compared to the EU average, Spain also performs badly in terms of business Research and Development (R&D) (see graph below), patents (24 per million inhabitants in 2001 as compared to 161 in the EU-15) and ICT take-up (29,5 % of households had internet access at home in 2002 as against 38,9 % in the EU-15). |
| --- | --- |

—

As compared to the EU average, Spain also performs badly in terms of business Research and Development (R&D) (see graph below), patents (24 per million inhabitants in 2001 as compared to 161 in the EU-15) and ICT take-up (29,5 % of households had internet access at home in 2002 as against 38,9 % in the EU-15).

Finally, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to section 4,5 of the same report, which does acknowledge that several initiatives have been launched to strengthen the knowledge-based economy.

Image

---

(1)  Forecasted for 2003See structural indicators website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/queen/dis-play.do?screen=welcome&open=/&product=STRIND_ECOBAC&language=en&depth=2

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/802 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/802

---

(2004/C 84 E/0898)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Portugal — nuclear waste

According to media reports a number of locations identified as nuclear-waste dumps were detected in summer 2003 by the French science ship Iledesein in the area in which the undersea cable linking mainland Portugal, the Azores and Madeira is being laid.

The nuclear-waste dumping areas which were discovered in the course of the scientific expedition (duly authorised by the Portuguese authorities) are 200 km away from Madeira (within the island's Exclusive Economic Zone) and to the east of the island of Santa Maria (outside the Azores EEZ), in the area in which the mainland/Azores/Madeira underwater cable is being laid.

The waste, which could have been dumped by the United Kingdom between 1949 and 1961, is located at a depth of 4 000 metres.

The French ship, which was surveying the area at the request of Alcatel Submarine Networks (the company to which the project has been entrusted) notified the discovery to the Azores underwater-cable station at the end of last year but the outcome of the operation was not notified to the Portuguese army.

An army source insists that it did not receive any information from the French ship but it confirms that the scientific expedition took place and that there exist within Portugal's EEZ a number of areas in which nuclear waste has already been dumped.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | Is the Commission aware of the above facts? How serious are they? Could they have significant environmental implications? What view does it take of the way in which the various parties involved in the survey operation acted? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission aware of the above facts? How serious are they? Could they have significant environmental implications? What view does it take of the way in which the various parties involved in the survey operation acted?

| — | What action has it taken (or does it intend to take) with a view to reducing the risk posed by the waste (which may have been dumped at the time when a national and international legal void existed in the case of such practices) and to helping the countries affected by such deposits of radioactive material? Can it confirm that such waste was dumped by the United Kingdom between 1949 and 1961? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action has it taken (or does it intend to take) with a view to reducing the risk posed by the waste (which may have been dumped at the time when a national and international legal void existed in the case of such practices) and to helping the countries affected by such deposits of radioactive material? Can it confirm that such waste was dumped by the United Kingdom between 1949 and 1961?

| — | Does it not consider that, despite the fact that effective legal protection probably did not exist at the time when the waste was dumped, those responsible for the waste could in some way be made responsible for having dumped it, or could be required to contribute in some way to disposing of the waste? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not consider that, despite the fact that effective legal protection probably did not exist at the time when the waste was dumped, those responsible for the waste could in some way be made responsible for having dumped it, or could be required to contribute in some way to disposing of the waste?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Although the Commission has not been involved in the issue in question, dumping at sea of waste including nuclear material had been carried out for several years by a number of countries. International rules to prevent marine pollution from this practice entered into force in 1974 and 1975 by means of the Oslo Convention for the North-East Atlantic and the London Convention for marine waters worldwide other than the internal waters of States.

In particular, while the dumping of high-level radioactive wastes has never been allowed under the London Convention, a moratorium on the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes has been in place since 1983 and Parties to the Convention agreed in 1993 to amend the relevant annexes in order to ban the dumping of all radioactive wastes. This legally binding prohibition entered into force on 20 February 1994.

Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has compiled an inventory of all such dumping reported and it contains events dating back to 1943 and includes locations in the Atlantic Ocean used by the United Kingdom between 1955 and 1961.

The present case relates to events that took place during a period when neither the United Kingdom nor Portugal were a member of the Community and that cannot be examined in the light of the relevant Community legislation.

However, compliance with the Community Radiation Protection provisions (1), as they are applicable today to the legacy from these events, falls, in the first instance, within the competence of that Member State with jurisdiction over the location where they took place.

The question of clearing responsibilities on the management of such dumped waste is not covered by the Euratom legislation. However, in its role as a Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will follow-up this issue, and if necessary, will request the necessary information from the Member States concerned in order to decide whether further Community action is required.

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, Articles 35 and 36 Euratom.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/804 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/804

---

(2004/C 84 E/0899)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Provision of aid to South Africa

South Africa has been going through a period marked by extremely serious problems to which the EU and the international community cannot remain (and, indeed, have not remained) indifferent. Those problems include a high rate of Aids infection, alarming unemployment levels, economic stagnation and an extremely worrying level of violent crime.

The alarming level of crime continues to have a tragic impact not only on the South African people themselves but also on the communities of European immigrants who are settled in South Africa.

Under the EU cooperation umbrella, projects have been implemented for the specific purpose of promoting and improving security levels in South Africa (project to organise and provide institutional support for the South African police service: EUR 18,5 million; project to assist the overhaul of the legal system: EUR 25 million; project to assist the policing of Eastern Cape Province: EUR 10,8 million).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | What stage has been reached in the implementation (both practical and financial) of the projects designed to promote and improve security levels in South Africa, and what effect have those projects had so far on improving security in the country? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What stage has been reached in the implementation (both practical and financial) of the projects designed to promote and improve security levels in South Africa, and what effect have those projects had so far on improving security in the country?

| 2. | Is the Commission planning to strengthen the above projects and extend them to other parts of South Africa? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission planning to strengthen the above projects and extend them to other parts of South Africa?

| 3. | Are further projects relating to improved security in South Africa to be devised and launched in areas such as policing, crime prevention and cooperation with the criminal-justice sector? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are further projects relating to improved security in South Africa to be devised and launched in areas such as policing, crime prevention and cooperation with the criminal-justice sector?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission recognises the threat that high levels of criminality, together with other socio-economic challenges like unemployment, HIV/AIDS and poverty pose to the sustainability of democracy in South Africa. Not only does it threaten the political advances already achieved during the past 10 years, but it also directly impacts on the quality of the lives of ordinary South Africans and others resident there.

The Commission is of the opinion that the South African Government has a sound policy framework in place to deal with crime. This is borne out not only by robust policy development in this field over the past eight years, but also by increased spending for the Criminal Justice Departments during the same period.

| 1. | Regarding the intended impact on the levels of safety and security by the development programmes referred to, the main objective is the improvement of service delivery by the South African Police Service (SAPS) and other relevant Criminal Justice Departments to the vulnerable communities in South Africa. In addition, the programmes emphasise issues related to improved access to the Justice system, crime prevention as well as the development and implementation of policies related to the fight against crime more broadly and building capacity in these departments. For example, access to the Courts has been improved by piloting an electronic maintenance grant payout system in the Department of Justice, while police service delivery has been improved by training hundreds of police officers to drive vehicles as well as the upgrading of Victim Friendly facilities at several Police Stations.
  One of the programmes also supports improvement of the investigative capacity of the SAPS by assisting with the development of an automated DNA Criminal Database that will extend SAPS's current ability to use DNA profiling to link suspected criminals to crimes committed. This will also be of benefit in relation to Sexual Offences like Rape and Child Abuse.







  Projects: | Physical Implementation (1) | Financial Disbursements (1) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| APEC (96/08) | Closure phase | >90 % |
| SAPS/DSS (99/024) | 40 % implemented | 25 % |
| e-Justice (00/28) | 60 % implemented | 100 % |

1.

Regarding the intended impact on the levels of safety and security by the development programmes referred to, the main objective is the improvement of service delivery by the South African Police Service (SAPS) and other relevant Criminal Justice Departments to the vulnerable communities in South Africa. In addition, the programmes emphasise issues related to improved access to the Justice system, crime prevention as well as the development and implementation of policies related to the fight against crime more broadly and building capacity in these departments. For example, access to the Courts has been improved by piloting an electronic maintenance grant payout system in the Department of Justice, while police service delivery has been improved by training hundreds of police officers to drive vehicles as well as the upgrading of Victim Friendly facilities at several Police Stations.

One of the programmes also supports improvement of the investigative capacity of the SAPS by assisting with the development of an automated DNA Criminal Database that will extend SAPS's current ability to use DNA profiling to link suspected criminals to crimes committed. This will also be of benefit in relation to Sexual Offences like Rape and Child Abuse.

Projects:

Physical Implementation (1)

Financial Disbursements (1)

APEC (96/08)

Closure phase

>90 %

SAPS/DSS (99/024)

40 % implemented

25 %

e-Justice (00/28)

60 % implemented

100 %

| 2. | Both the e-Justice (00/28) and SAPS (99/24) programmes are piloted across all nine provinces of the country already. Despite the fact that the relevant departments have, with their own funds, extended aspects of these programmes to other geographical areas, the Commission remains ready to assist both the SA Police Service and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development with extending these programmes where possible and feasible to other parts of the country. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Both the e-Justice (00/28) and SAPS (99/24) programmes are piloted across all nine provinces of the country already. Despite the fact that the relevant departments have, with their own funds, extended aspects of these programmes to other geographical areas, the Commission remains ready to assist both the SA Police Service and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development with extending these programmes where possible and feasible to other parts of the country.

| 3. | The Commission and its Member States, in September 2003, agreed to the funding (with DFID (2)) of a programme that will focus on support to the policing of crimes against women and children in the Eastern Cape Province, worth EUR 25 million in total. The overall objective of this programme is improved safety and security for the people of the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa. This theme is developed into the specific programme purpose of prevention of crimes against women and children and improving the services delivered to people affected by such crimes in project priority areas. While the Financing Agreement has been signed by the Commission, a signature is expected by the South African Government in early March 2004, with project implementation commencing soon afterwards.
  As previously explained and in line with Parliamentary recommendations, the Commission confirms its intention to continue co-operation with the Criminal Justice sector as foreseen in the Country Strategy Paper 2003/05, emphasising service delivery improvement, crime prevention in relation to vulnerable groups, community involvement and increased accountability of the Criminal Justice sector (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission and its Member States, in September 2003, agreed to the funding (with DFID (2)) of a programme that will focus on support to the policing of crimes against women and children in the Eastern Cape Province, worth EUR 25 million in total. The overall objective of this programme is improved safety and security for the people of the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa. This theme is developed into the specific programme purpose of prevention of crimes against women and children and improving the services delivered to people affected by such crimes in project priority areas. While the Financing Agreement has been signed by the Commission, a signature is expected by the South African Government in early March 2004, with project implementation commencing soon afterwards.

As previously explained and in line with Parliamentary recommendations, the Commission confirms its intention to continue co-operation with the Criminal Justice sector as foreseen in the Country Strategy Paper 2003/05, emphasising service delivery improvement, crime prevention in relation to vulnerable groups, community involvement and increased accountability of the Criminal Justice sector (3).

---

(1)  These figures are estimated.

(2)  DFID — Department for International Development — United Kingdom Government.

(3)  Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/805 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/805

---

(2004/C 84 E/0900)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0525/04

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Potato ring rot

The Commission will be aware that the recent outbreak of potato ring rot in Wales gave serious concerns to potato growers in other parts of the United Kingdom, including my own constituency, Scotland. The Commission may also be aware that the National Union of Farmers in Scotland, together with colleagues in Ireland, are keen to take action to prevent the spread of this disease to their own crops by establishing ‘high health regions’. This would allow Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to attain official designation as areas which are free from potato ring rot and enable a ban to be imposed on the import of seed from non-designated areas. This strategy would achieve the dual aims of stemming the spread of the disease and ensuring that disease-free areas are able to cultivate healthy potato crops.

Would the Commission agree that measures such as those being proposed by the farmers of Scotland and Ireland would assist in preventing the spread of this disease and indicate what needs to be done at EU as well as at national or devolved level of government to achieve these aims?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

We are well aware of the outbreak of potato ring rot to which the Honourable Member refers and are carefully monitoring the situation, on which we are regularly updated by the British authorities. On the proposals made by Scottish and Irish farmers, we must point out that the Union already has appropriate legislation in place for preventing appearance of this disease on its territory and controlling it if it does occur. The legislation is Directive 2000/29/EC (1), enacting health provisions in connection with entry into the Union and movement within it of plants and plant products, including potatoes, and Directive 93/85/EEC (2), which contains a set of very detailed technical measures for thwarting the appearance of this disease and controlling it. Under the Community provisions no movement of potatoes is possible unless the plant health requirements have been met, namely that they are free of ring rot, in the case of seed potatoes are accompanied by a plant health passport attesting that fact, and in the case of ware potatoes that the grower or packer is officially registered. We do not see what further measures could be added. Moreover, under single market rules once harmonised technical measures are in place no prohibition for plant health reasons on movement within the Community is permitted.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ L 169, 10.7.2000. Last amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

(2)  Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot, OJ L 259, 18.10.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/806 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/806

---

(2004/C 84 E/0901)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Yielding to the USA's pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning passengers in advance of a possible agreement

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that — before any agreement has been concluded between the EU and the USA — the Dutch airline KLM is supplying all the data requested by the US Customs Service — including credit card numbers, e-mail addresses and dietary preferences — concerning passengers on flights landing at US airports, whereas other European airlines such as Alitalia, in compliance with national legislation, are not doing so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that — before any agreement has been concluded between the EU and the USA — the Dutch airline KLM is supplying all the data requested by the US Customs Service — including credit card numbers, e-mail addresses and dietary preferences — concerning passengers on flights landing at US airports, whereas other European airlines such as Alitalia, in compliance with national legislation, are not doing so?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that this supply of data, which may contravene national and European standards for the protection of privacy, is taking place under the threat that passengers may be detained for hours after landing and that airlines may be fined USD 5 000 per passenger, be barred from entering US airspace or have their landing rights withdrawn? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that this supply of data, which may contravene national and European standards for the protection of privacy, is taking place under the threat that passengers may be detained for hours after landing and that airlines may be fined USD 5 000 per passenger, be barred from entering US airspace or have their landing rights withdrawn?

| 3. | Does the US Customs Service store these data for three and a half years? What US institutions other than the Customs Service have access to the data? For what purpose are the data passed to other parties and for how long are they stored by them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the US Customs Service store these data for three and a half years? What US institutions other than the Customs Service have access to the data? For what purpose are the data passed to other parties and for how long are they stored by them?

| 4. | Does the Commission accept that the USA should subject European passengers to measures against terrorism or crime which do not apply to US citizens and which the USA also would not accept from other states? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission accept that the USA should subject European passengers to measures against terrorism or crime which do not apply to US citizens and which the USA also would not accept from other states?

| 5. | What would have to change in comparison with the current situation before an agreement with the USA on exchanges of personal data of air passengers might possibly be worthwhile? Does the Commission see any prospect that agreement on this may be possible within the next five years? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What would have to change in comparison with the current situation before an agreement with the USA on exchanges of personal data of air passengers might possibly be worthwhile? Does the Commission see any prospect that agreement on this may be possible within the next five years?

| 6. | Ought the European airline which complies least with the US requirements to be the yardstick for other European airlines? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Ought the European airline which complies least with the US requirements to be the yardstick for other European airlines?

| 7. | Under what circumstances will the Court of Justice of the European Communities ultimately decide on the lawfulness of compliance by EU-based operators with these US practices? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Under what circumstances will the Court of Justice of the European Communities ultimately decide on the lawfulness of compliance by EU-based operators with these US practices?

Source: TV Nederland 3, ‘Nova’, 12 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

| 1. | Most EU-based airlines are complying with the United States requirement to provide Passenger Name Records (PNR) introduced by Congress in legislation adopted in November 2001 and applied since March 2003. This is as noted in the Joint Statement agreed between the Commission and the competent United States authorities on 18 February 2003. The Joint Statement marked the beginning of negotiations which have allowed the Commission to secure a number of significant improvements in the way the United States processes PNR data they receive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Most EU-based airlines are complying with the United States requirement to provide Passenger Name Records (PNR) introduced by Congress in legislation adopted in November 2001 and applied since March 2003. This is as noted in the Joint Statement agreed between the Commission and the competent United States authorities on 18 February 2003. The Joint Statement marked the beginning of negotiations which have allowed the Commission to secure a number of significant improvements in the way the United States processes PNR data they receive.

| 2. | The United States legislation concerned does indeed foresee the possibility of sanctions against airlines that do not comply, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The US authorities have not however, to the Commission's knowledge, applied any such sanctions since the negotiations referred to above began. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The United States legislation concerned does indeed foresee the possibility of sanctions against airlines that do not comply, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The US authorities have not however, to the Commission's knowledge, applied any such sanctions since the negotiations referred to above began.

| 3. | Present United States practice is as set out in the Joint Statement. Under the new Undertakings negotiated with the United States by the Commission which will come into effect once the proposed Adequacy Finding and international agreement are effective, the data retention period will be limited to three and a half years. Data may only be shared on a case by case basis with other authorities involved in combating terrorism and law enforcement for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes, other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight from warrants or custody for these crimes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Present United States practice is as set out in the Joint Statement. Under the new Undertakings negotiated with the United States by the Commission which will come into effect once the proposed Adequacy Finding and international agreement are effective, the data retention period will be limited to three and a half years. Data may only be shared on a case by case basis with other authorities involved in combating terrorism and law enforcement for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes, other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight from warrants or custody for these crimes.

| 4. | No. The United States requirements apply to all airline passengers on flights to or from the United States, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The United States authorities participating in the negotiations with the Commission have indicated that they see no obstacle or objection to the provision to authorities in the EU of PNR concerning flights to or from EU locations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

No. The United States requirements apply to all airline passengers on flights to or from the United States, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The United States authorities participating in the negotiations with the Commission have indicated that they see no obstacle or objection to the provision to authorities in the EU of PNR concerning flights to or from EU locations.

| 5. | The Commission's position is set out fully in its Communication of 16 December 2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission's position is set out fully in its Communication of 16 December 2003 (1).

| 6. | The Commission's objective throughout the above-mentioned negotiations has been to create conditions that will allow airlines to comply with their legal obligations on both sides of the Atlantic. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission's objective throughout the above-mentioned negotiations has been to create conditions that will allow airlines to comply with their legal obligations on both sides of the Atlantic.

| 7. | As provided for in the EC Treaty, the European Court of Justice can be called upon to review the legality, ‘inter alia’, of acts of the Council or of the Commission, including therefore the legal instruments which the Commission is in the process of putting in place. Actions may be brought by a Member State, the Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

As provided for in the EC Treaty, the European Court of Justice can be called upon to review the legality, ‘inter alia’, of acts of the Council or of the Commission, including therefore the legal instruments which the Commission is in the process of putting in place. Actions may be brought by a Member State, the Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 826 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/808 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/808

---

(2004/C 84 E/0902)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Requirement to keep poultry indoors

On Thursday, 12 February 2004, the executive of the Netherlands Poultry and Eggs Marketing Board decided to make it compulsory for chickens, turkeys and ducks on poultry farms to be kept indoors. This measure is intended to prevent possible infection with the avian flu virus during the present bird migration, which will last until the end of April.

| 1. | Ought not this measure to be made compulsory immediately throughout the European Union, in view of the international nature of bird migrations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Ought not this measure to be made compulsory immediately throughout the European Union, in view of the international nature of bird migrations?

| 2. | Will the Commission call on amateur poultry-keepers to adopt the same measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission call on amateur poultry-keepers to adopt the same measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The ‘Productschap Pluimvee en Eieren (PPE)’ has, according to the information gathered by the Commission, asked the Dutch authority if the compulsory locking up of poultry is considered to be a veterinary necessity as a preventive measure against an infection of avian influenza by migratory birds. The Dutch authorities have considered this question, but after a balanced deliberation of advantages and disadvantages did not order compulsory locking up of poultry.

The Commission agrees that measures to prevent and control avian influenza must be risk based, whilst risk management measures must consider both benefits and costs. Measures aimed at reducing contact of migratory wild birds with domestic poultry and bio-security measures on poultry farms, including hobby farms, should in principle reduce the risk of Avian Influenza virus transmission. However, the epidemiology of this disease is complex and there are still a lot of unknown factors. There is also insufficient knowledge and experience indicating if the benefits in terms of reduction of risk of infection of poultry by wild birds by a draconian measure like locking up poultry in the whole Community outweigh the undesirable environmental and social consequences and the possible negative impact on animal welfare.

In order to improve knowledge on these issues the Commission, following the advice of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, has coordinated and co-financed a survey in the Member States to estimate the prevalence and distribution of Avian Influenza in wild birds and poultry, in particular as regards the so-called Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza. This survey was conducted in 2003 and will be executed again in 2004. The Commission might forward proposals on the Community's policy on avian influenza in the light of the results of these surveys.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/809 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/809

---

(2004/C 84 E/0903)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Incidence of ‘blue-baby syndrome’ in EU Member States

Does the Commission have any statistics relating to the incidences of methaemoglobinaemia (i.e. ‘blue-baby syndrome’) in EU Member States?

Does it believe that full compliance with the Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC (1)) has had an impact on the incidence of this syndrome in the EU since the Directive entered into force in 1995? If so, what has been that impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The ‘blue baby syndrome’ (methaemoglobinaemia), linked to high nitrate levels in drinking water, still exists both in Eastern Europe (hundreds of cases) and the United States, but has a relatively low incidence in the countries of Western Europe. This is in relation also to the enforcement of strict limit value on nitrates in drinking waters over the last 20 years.

According to the joint report from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) office for Europe (2), few countries keep records of methaemoglobinaemia: eight out of 26. The report shows that the vulnerability of infants receiving drinking waters from shallow groundwater sources (individual private wells) is emphasized by the data from Hungary, where between nine and 49 cases are recorded annually, all over the country. A similar number of incidents is recorded annually in Slovakia. In Albania in 1996 were recorded 46 cases of methaeglonobinemia, all related to nitrate in drinking water, while in Romania, between 1985 and 1996, 2 913 cases were recorded.

The precautionary value of 50 milligrams (mg) per litre is essential to prevent health effects, such as methaemoglobinaemia in infants. The revision of the Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (3), which reviewed the parametric values in accordance with the latest available scientific knowledge (e.g. WHO Guidelines, Scientific Committee on Toxicology and Ecotoxicology), confirmed for nitrates the previous limit value of 50 mg per litre.

In order to reduce the nitrate concentration in waters, the full implementation of the Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources) is essential.

Since 1991, and in particular in the last years, significant progress has been made by Member States in the different steps foreseen by the Directive: water monitoring and identification of polluted waters, designation of nitrates vulnerable zones and design and implementation of action programmes. At this stage, all Member States have established a monitoring network, designated nitrate vulnerable zones and, in general, established action programmes in nitrate vulnerable zones, which means that they are implementing a set of measures to prevent and reduce nitrate pollution. The total surface of nitrate vulnerable zones in Europe comprised 38 % of the total EU area in the year 2000. Since then, also as a consequence of Commission action through infringement procedures, it further increased in several Member States, like Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Ireland took the decision to establish an action programme in the whole country, as previously done by Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland.

Notwithstanding these improvements, further progress is required. The Commission is fully committed to ensure that the Nitrates Directive is correctly implemented in the Member States with a set of actions and if necessary by putting legal pressure through infringement procedures on Member States, which do not implement correctly the different steps of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(2)  EEA, WHO, 2002. Water and health in Europe, WHO Regional publications European series, No 93.

(3)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/810 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/810

---

(2004/C 84 E/0904)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/04

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Ship-to-ship oil transfers

Can the Commission indicate what European Union legislation, if any, exists with regard to the safety of ship-to-ship oil transfers in the coastal waters of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

There is no Community legislation dealing expressly with ship-to-ship cargo transfers in waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States.

However, several EU maritime safety Directives and Regulations are relevant, as they provide for inspections of ships involved in this type of operation in ports and waters under the jurisdiction of Member States.

The following are particularly relevant:

| — | Directive 2001/106/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC (2) on port state control deals with this matter indirectly. It provides for priority inspections of ships considered to be at risk, including tankers likely to make ship-to-ship transfers; |
| --- | --- |

—

Directive 2001/106/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC (2) on port state control deals with this matter indirectly. It provides for priority inspections of ships considered to be at risk, including tankers likely to make ship-to-ship transfers;

| — | Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (4). This Regulation prohibits the operation — and this includes fuel transfer — of single-hull oil tankers transporting heavy grades of oil in ports and anchorages in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (4). This Regulation prohibits the operation — and this includes fuel transfer — of single-hull oil tankers transporting heavy grades of oil in ports and anchorages in Member States.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 9 5/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions, OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

(2)  OJ L 157, 7.7.1998.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers, OJ L 249, 1.10.2003.

(4)  OJ L 64, 7.3.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/811 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/811

---

(2004/C 84 E/0905)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0568/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Subject:   Final report concerning Eurostat

The Internal Audit Service's final report on the awarding of contracts at Eurostat was announced for February 2004.

Is that still the case, and when will the report be forwarded to Parliament?

According to information from Mrs Schreyer, the investigation into former UCLAF and OLAF officials for neglect of duty (including in connection with Eurostat) is nearing completion. When is the report likely to be submitted?

In the six months before the Eurostat affair became public in May 2003, the firm Planistat obtained no fewer than 20 new contracts from Eurostat which were subsequently terminated in summer 2003. Is that latest and last batch of contracts the subject of OLAF investigations, or is OLAF confining itself only to events in 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the report by the Internal Audit Service supplementing the examination of the contracts conducted in 2003 has now been finalised. Internal Audit Service reports are normally intended for the party being audited, in this instance the Commission and its departments.

However, in order to help Parliament perform its supervisory work and since the Budgetary Control Committee is likely to ask to see the report in due course, the Commission is prepared to forward the report to your institution. It will send the report to the Chair of the Budgetary Control Committee, Ms Theato, for the attention of Mr Bayona, who is the rapporteur for the 2002 discharge, and of Mr Bösch, who is the rapporteur for the fight against fraud, on the terms laid down in Annex III to the Interinstitutional Framework Agreement signed by Parliament and the Commission in June 2000.

The internal investigation to which the Honourable Member refers and which concerns former officials of the anti-fraud coordination office, UCLAF (now the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF), is currently being finalised by OLAF. Once the final investigation report is ready, it will be forwarded in accordance with Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1).

As regards the contracts awarded to Planistat by Eurostat during the six months prior to May 2003 and subsequently terminated, OLAF confirms that there is no investigation under way.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/811 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/811

---

(2004/C 84 E/0906)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Start of construction work on the Brenner base tunnel

After years of negotiations, building work on the Brenner base tunnel is due to start in 2006. This infrastructure project will involve diverting traffic and will therefore have negative repercussions on people living near the route, including greater noise nuisance, both during and after construction of the tunnel.

What steps is the Commission envisaging to protect local people during the building work?

Is the Commission providing funds for the construction of noise barriers?

Does the Commission intend to do anything to reduce the nuisance while construction work is going on?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

According to the current timetable of the Brenner base tunnel the construction of a pilot tunnel to explore the geological situation on the entire tunnel length may start in 2006.

Any environmental impact during and after the construction phase is subject to a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment required by the Italian and the Austrian law.

Initial environmental studies have revealed certain potential conflicting matters. The responsible environmental authorities in Italy and Austria have already requested the close examination of those issues.

The measures necessary to minimize or avoid environmental nuisances during and after the construction phase will be defined in the environmental impact statement on either side of the border. Those measures will become part of the tunnel project and will in so far be subject to potential EU financial support.

In addition, the Commission-proposal of July 2003 to amend the ‘Eurovignette’ directive (1) suggests explicitly that ‘any infrastructure costs designed to reduce nuisance related to noise’ be considered eligible cost factors in calculating user fees.

As the Commission is not conducting the project, the measures will have to be implemented by the project promoter, i.e. the Brenner Base Tunnel EEIG (and future BBT SE) and followed by respective national authorities.

---

(1)  Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/812 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/812

---

(2004/C 84 E/0907)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0575/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Electioneering activities of Mrs Diamantopoulou

According to press reports, Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou plans to resign temporarily from the Commission so that she can campaign in the parliamentary elections in Greece. The Commissioner is apparently to play an important role in the socialist party PASOK. Press reports suggest that during the campaign she will no longer receive her salary as a Member of the European Commission. In the intervening period, her duties in the Commission would be taken over by somebody else.

Is it usual for members of the European Commission to leave office temporarily in order to take part in election campaigns in their home country? Are there precedents for this and, if so, what are they?

Does the Commission regard situations of this kind as good for its work?

Is there any truth in the reports that Mrs Diamantopoulou will receive no salary from the Commission during the Greek election campaign?

During this period will she have access to the facilities afforded to her in her capacity as a Commissioner (official car and driver and so on)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission has always held the view that the exercise of the duties of a Member of the College is incompatible with active participation as a candidate in an electoral campaign for a national parliament or the European Parliament. This means that throughout such a campaign the Member of the Commission must not take part in the work of the latter (1).

The aim has been to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure that the Member of the Commission in question enjoys complete freedom of action and speech while complying with the principle of collegiality.

Precedents were set by the Vice-President of the High Authority, Mr Etzel, in 1956, the Vice-President of the EEC Commission, Mr Marjolin, in 1962, the President of the High Authority, Mr Malvestiti, in 1963, the Vice-President of the EEC Commission, Mr Caron, in 1963, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Deniau, in 1968, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Hellwig, in 1969, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Spinelli, in 1976, and the Member of the EC Commission, Mr O'Kennedy, in 1982, all of whom did not take part in the work of the Commission during their participation as candidates in electoral campaigns.

Since suspension of her duties on a Commission decision, Ms Diamantopoulou has not received a salary or any other kind of remuneration from the Commission.

---

(1)  See, in particular, answers to Written Questions E-0124/68, OJ C 83, 23.8.1968, E-0858/76, OJ C 70, 21.3.1977 and P-2752/94, OJ C 88, 10.4.1995.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/813 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/813

---

(2004/C 84 E/0908)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Vasova lagoon

Further to my written question E-1307/02 (1) on fuel storage tank installations in Vasova lagoon, I should like to provide the Commission with the following latest information in order to facilitate its investigations. Vasova lagoon, which forms part of the Delta of the river Nestos and the Keramoti lagoon, was put forward by Greece under code GR 1150010 as a site of Community interest pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (2). However, instead of the whole lagoon being included in the National Park of Eastern Macedonia-Thrace and being protected as an integral part of the ecosystem of the Nestos Delta, it is being totally excluded from the protection areas, even formally. Moreover, the area earmarked for the storage tank installations has now been increased sixfold and is being excluded from the National Park, contrary to the provisions of the Park's founding act in 1996.

Given that Community legislation on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora is being flagrantly violated in this case, will the Commission investigate on the basis of which national or Community legislation the Greek Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works is excluding the lagoon in question from the environmental protection to which it is entitled?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the additional information he has provided.

On the basis of the facts reported by the Honourable Member in question E-1307/02 (3), the Commission opened an own-initiative case to check whether the installation of new tanks for the storage and transit of petroleum products on the Vasova estuary in addition to the existing tanks, is compatible with Community environmental law. The site in question is a wetland of great ecological importance, which has been designated by the Greek authorities as a special protection area (‘Nestos Delta and Keramoti Lagoons’ — code GR115001) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (4), and also proposed as a site of Community importance (‘Nestos Delta and Keramoti Lagoons — surrounding region and coastal area’ — code GR11500010) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (5).

The case has been investigated and it has not been possible to confirm any infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (6), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (7), on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, or of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 (8) on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances.

However, the Greek authorities do not appear to have taken the necessary measures to establish an adequate system for protecting the site and preventing the deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of species. Neither have they ensured that any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the site in question, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

The Commission is following the case very closely and will not hesitate to take appropriate measures, including the initiation of infringement proceedings, to ensure that Greece meets the obligations arising from Article 4(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 79/409/EEC, Article 7 and Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 119.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ C 301, 5.12.2002.

(4)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(5)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(6)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(7)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(8)  OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/814 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/814

---

(2004/C 84 E/0909)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Application of Accounting Standard IAS 32 to co-operatives

Is the Commission aware of the effect that the adoption of Accounting Standard IAS 32 by the EU's Accounting Regulatory Committee would have on the co-operative movement?

Does the Commission accept that it was drawn up with only public limited companies in mind and is totally inappropriate for co-operatives because it classifies co-operative share capital as debt?

Will the Commission ensure that, as in the USA, the application of this particular provision to co-operatives should be avoided, without which the effect on the co-operative sector would be devastating?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

It should first of all be remembered that only those cooperatives whose shares are traded on a European stock market and that produce consolidated accounts will be affected by Accounting Standard IAS 32, i.e. a minority of cooperatives. Moreover, according to our information, the American situation is more complex than the Honourable Member describes since in the United States stock exchange-quoted entities cannot benefit from the deferred application of the provisions of the American standard FAS 150, equivalent to IAS 32.

That said, the Commission is well aware of the problem raised by the possible reclassification of cooperatives' share capital as debt in the application of Accounting Standard IAS 32. This issue has been the subject of numerous discussions with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and is currently under examination.

Although Accounting Standard IAS 32 was published by the IASB in December 2003, the specific accounting treatment of cooperatives' shares is currently being examined by the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) of the IASB, where the Commission has observer status. Progress has already been made thanks to sustained dialogue between the IASB and the European Association of Co-operative Banks. It would appear that the IASB and IFRIC are starting to have a better understanding of the way in which cooperatives operate as well as the characteristics of their shares.

Discussions have highlighted that there is more than one type of cooperative, that the issue of shares is complicated and that their accounting treatment can depend on attributes given to them by the statutes of the cooperatives concerned. It is up to the IASB to take into account the variety of these situations through either an interpretation of Accounting Standard IAS 32 or advice on its application.

The IFRIC should be able to issue such interpretation or advice before the summer, clarifying the fact that cooperative members' contributions are considered as capital if their reimbursement by the cooperative is subject to a decision by the competent body within the organisation, implying that this reimbursement is neither automatic nor unconditional.

It would seem that the cooperative world, particularly its banking sector, will be satisfied with this result. The Commission will continue to follow very closely the developments in this field in order to guarantee that the result of current discussions accords with the indications provided by the IASB.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/815 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/815

---

(2004/C 84 E/0910)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0595/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Horse racing prizes in Greece

| 1. | Will the Commission confirm whether it has received any complaints concerning discrimination by the Greek Jockey Club against owners whose winners are bred outside Greece, notably in Britain and Ireland? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission confirm whether it has received any complaints concerning discrimination by the Greek Jockey Club against owners whose winners are bred outside Greece, notably in Britain and Ireland?

| 2. | Will it confirm that a proportion of the prize money is withheld by the Greek racing authorities if the horse is bred outside Greece? If so, does it agree that this represents prima facie evidence of discrimination against the nationals of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it confirm that a proportion of the prize money is withheld by the Greek racing authorities if the horse is bred outside Greece? If so, does it agree that this represents prima facie evidence of discrimination against the nationals of another Member State?

| 3. | Is it investigating the case? On what timescale does it expect to reach a conclusion that upholds the Treaty provisions against discrimination? Can arrangements be made for the reimbursement of prize money unfairly withheld from owners with horses bred outside Greece? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it investigating the case? On what timescale does it expect to reach a conclusion that upholds the Treaty provisions against discrimination? Can arrangements be made for the reimbursement of prize money unfairly withheld from owners with horses bred outside Greece?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission has received a letter claiming that the Greek Jockey Club is withholding prize money from non-Greek-bred race-horses emanating from other Member States. The information provided to date is not sufficient to permit the Commission to ascertain whether, as suggested by the Honourable Member, a proportion of the prize money is indeed withheld by the Greek racing authorities if a horse is bred outside Greece. It is also not yet in a position to ascertain the compatibility with Community law of any such practice, especially since it has not yet received the relevant regulations. More particularly, it is not clear whether the Greek Jockey Club is a private body, a recognised association that has legal autonomy to act in Greece or a public organisation (e.g., whether it is governed by public law). Consequently, it is yet to be determined whether the problem raised will be analysed under competition law or under Internal Market rules.

To permit the Commission to examine the concerns raised regarding the practices of the Greek Jockey Club and to be in a position to register a formal complaint, the Commission has requested additional information from the interested party.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/816 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/816

---

(2004/C 84 E/0911)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0600/04

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Remuneration of amateur football managers

Football is a very popular sport in Italy which is played by large numbers of young people.

The astronomical sums paid to professional footballers have created major problems for all clubs and have required government intervention in the form of the ‘Spalma-debiti’ decree allowing clubs to spread their debts over ten years.

This decree is now under close scrutiny by the Competition Commissioner Mario Monti.

Amateur football is a sport which gives young people the opportunity to develop their physical and mental skills in the open air and participation has always been unpaid or the amounts involved have been very small.

The chairmen of amateur clubs also incur considerable expenses without any remuneration apart from their love of the game.

However, other managers in the football sector, from the President of the League to board members, are known to receive remuneration of thousands of euro in the form of per diem allowances to cover their expenses, which are questionable from the tax point of view and circumvent the provisions of Article 10 of the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) which says that the duties performed by officers shall not be remunerated and prohibits offices in the federation from being held by those who derive financial gain from their involvement in football.

Can the Commission say whether this situation amounts to a distortion of competition in a particularly sensitive sector or involves serious irregularities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Regarding the question of whether the fact that the President and board members of the football League — as opposed to chairmen of amateur clubs — are remunerated, amounts to a distortion of competition or involves serious irregularities with respect to the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC), the Commission wishes to indicate the following:

| — | as regards a possible infringement of competition rules, this could only arise in connection to behaviour of undertakings or from the granting of State aid to undertakings. The circumstances described in the question do not seem to concern undertakings and are, therefore, outside the scope of the competition rules of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards a possible infringement of competition rules, this could only arise in connection to behaviour of undertakings or from the granting of State aid to undertakings. The circumstances described in the question do not seem to concern undertakings and are, therefore, outside the scope of the competition rules of the EC Treaty;

| — | the Honourable Member states that the remunerations paid are questionable from a tax point of view. In that respect, the Commission would like to point out that Member States are free to set their own rules regarding direct taxation, as long as they do not infringe the EC Treaty or any relevant secondary Community legislation. In this case there appears to be no such infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Honourable Member states that the remunerations paid are questionable from a tax point of view. In that respect, the Commission would like to point out that Member States are free to set their own rules regarding direct taxation, as long as they do not infringe the EC Treaty or any relevant secondary Community legislation. In this case there appears to be no such infringement;

| — | as regards possible irregularities with respect to the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) these are matters outside the competence of the Commission. Indeed, the Commission recalls that the Union does not have a specific competence in the field of sport, which is organised by sporting organisations. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees on the important and positive contribution of voluntariness and has included it among the objectives of the European Year of Education through Sport 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards possible irregularities with respect to the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) these are matters outside the competence of the Commission. Indeed, the Commission recalls that the Union does not have a specific competence in the field of sport, which is organised by sporting organisations. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees on the important and positive contribution of voluntariness and has included it among the objectives of the European Year of Education through Sport 2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/817 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/817

---

(2004/C 84 E/0912)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Global assessment of the major Ebro water transfer project

On 16 December 2003, before the Committee on the Environment, and on various later occasions, Commissioner Barnier stated that the Commission was going to carry out a global assessment of the Ebro water transfer project, since this was a ‘mega scheme’. Another project, previously assessed by the Commission was the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó, using the services of the EIB. The EIB study has been criticised for its partiality, and for the lack of involvement of all the parties involved, since the EIB merely consulted the local administrations and groups which were in favour of the transfer.

Is the Commission going to use the EIB to assess the Ebro transfer?

How does the Commission intend to rectify the omission of public participation in its assessment of the Júcar — Vinalopó transfer and in that of the Ebro transfer?

Does the Commission intend to push for consultations at local level and fresh technical meetings in Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The projects regarding the Ebro river transfer, submitted by the Spanish authorities for co-financing through Community funds, are under evaluation by the Commission. As announced, they are being evaluated as a single global project.

According to the provisions of Article26.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), and with Article 13.2 and 13.3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2), the Commission may consult, where necessary, the European Investment Bank (EIB) for the appraisal of projects.

The EIB works as an independent consultant. The Commission is not involved in this process.

In the light of all the relevant information and analyses, the Commission will make its own assessment of the project in the context of its responsibilities laid down in the above-mentioned regulations and in partnership with the Spanish authorities concerned. Where necessary, it may decide to convene additional technical meetings on the project.

The Commission is required to adopt each decision concerning support from the Structural Funds and Cohesion in line with the relevant Community Regulations and in full compliance with all the other applicable Community policies and legislation.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/818 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/818

---

(2004/C 84 E/0913)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0608/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   The Commission's political intentions re GMOs

On 18 December 2003, report A5-0465/2003 relating to the coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops was adopted by a great majority of MEPs in the European Parliament.

Bearing this in mind can the Commission tell the European Parliament of its political intentions with regard to the following issues:

| — | Will the Commission stipulate the labelling of GMOs in seed at the technically measurable and reliable detection threshold on the basis of Article 21(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), and take into account the scientific assessments regarding practical applicability (paragraph 2)? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the Commission stipulate the labelling of GMOs in seed at the technically measurable and reliable detection threshold on the basis of Article 21(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), and take into account the scientific assessments regarding practical applicability (paragraph 2)?

| — | Will the Commission establish uniform and binding rules without delay at the Community level on the coexistence of genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified conventional crops, and call for the European Parliament to be included in this process under the codecision procedure (paragraph 3)? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the Commission establish uniform and binding rules without delay at the Community level on the coexistence of genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified conventional crops, and call for the European Parliament to be included in this process under the codecision procedure (paragraph 3)?

| — | Will the Commission submit a proposal on Community-wide civil liability provisions for sufficient insurance coverage on the part of the applicant, as a component of the authorisation procedure for placing GMOs on the market (paragraph 8)? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the Commission submit a proposal on Community-wide civil liability provisions for sufficient insurance coverage on the part of the applicant, as a component of the authorisation procedure for placing GMOs on the market (paragraph 8)?

| — | Finally, will the Commission make a formal commitment not to proceed with the approval of the release of any further genetically modified varieties of plant until such time as binding rules on coexistence, backed up by a system of liability based firmly on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, have been agreed and implemented? |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, will the Commission make a formal commitment not to proceed with the approval of the release of any further genetically modified varieties of plant until such time as binding rules on coexistence, backed up by a system of liability based firmly on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, have been agreed and implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

In terms of thresholds, Article 21(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC (2) provides for the possibility to derogate from labelling requirements where adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of GMOs cannot be excluded in other products. The Commission is currently preparing a decision concerning labelling thresholds for GM seeds, under this Article, below which the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seed lots does not have to be labelled. Such thresholds will take account of the 0,9 % threshold in place for food and feed products arising from the harvested products of the seed lots in question and should also be workable and enforceable. Identical thresholds will then be adopted under the seed legislation under the Management Committee Procedure.

In the context of co-existence measures, the Commission believes its role should be limited to guidance and it is not its intention to establish uniform and binding rules for co-existence at the Community level. This is because the proportionality, effectiveness and cost-efficiency of measures for co-existence tend to be dependent upon national and regional (or even local) environmental, topographical and climatic conditions as well as farming practices, which vary greatly both between and within Member States. The Commission considers, therefore, that the ‘subsidiarity approach’ is the most appropriate for the development and implementation of co-existence measures and the new Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC provides a legal basis for such measures. It should be noted that any draft proposed measure that has the potential to create a technical barrier to trade, or conflict with a full harmonisation method, must be notified to the Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC (3).

Liability rules will be conditioned by the overall approach to co-existence taken by Member States and should therefore be addressed as an integral part of the package of co-existence measures. The Commission has, therefore, also decided to apply the subsidiarity principle to liability rules for co-existence. The Commission policy has always been that civil liability would be better dealt with at a national level and has asked Member States to assess whether their existing civil liability law would be appropriate to deal with co-existence issues. It will re-examine this issue in 2005, as part of a report on co-existence, which will include the measures taken by the different Member States.

The Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, has an obligation to ensure that Community legislation is fully implemented across the Community. Directive 2001/18/EC and the recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) establish rules for the authorisation of GMOs and the Commission intends to ensure that this legislation is fully enforced.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3)  Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/819 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/819

---

(2004/C 84 E/0914)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Terrorism: drawing up a European directive providing for the presence of air marshals on board aircraft

Knowing that:

| — | the development of international terrorism has led to the need for specialised personnel on board aircraft to anticipate or prevent terrorist attacks and hijacking; |
| --- | --- |

—

the development of international terrorism has led to the need for specialised personnel on board aircraft to anticipate or prevent terrorist attacks and hijacking;

| — | it is advisable that such personnel (air marshals) have some kind of preparation for working unarmed; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is advisable that such personnel (air marshals) have some kind of preparation for working unarmed;

| — | such personnel could be used on the ground in cooperation with the police; |
| --- | --- |

—

such personnel could be used on the ground in cooperation with the police;

| — | the USA is urging European airlines to employ air marshals on transatlantic flights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the USA is urging European airlines to employ air marshals on transatlantic flights;

| — | the first training course for air marshals has been set up in Milan, a course which provides for training exercises to be carried out at an airport near the city from 1 March 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

the first training course for air marshals has been set up in Milan, a course which provides for training exercises to be carried out at an airport near the city from 1 March 2004.

Does the Commission intend to draw up a European directive laying down rules for the aforementioned sector, providing for, in particular, the presence of such security personnel on transatlantic flights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At the end of December 2003 and more recently in February 2004, the US authorities, acting on the basis of information regarding potential terrorist threats, asked a number of European airlines to step up their security measures on certain flights judged to be at risk. Some countries agreed to deploy police officers on these flights, while others preferred simply to cancel the flights in question.

As things stand, Germany and Austria are the only two EU Member States to have had a Sky Marshal-type programme in place for a number of years. Under the pressure of recent events, a number of other Member States, including from among the new Member States, are considering deploying police officers on sensitive flights or have already taken the decision to do so. A third group of countries continues to have reservations about measures of this type, citing the risks associated with the presence of arms on board and/or the greater effectiveness of pre-boarding controls on the ground.

The Commission has looked at the different positions adopted by the Member States. It would like to see Sky Marshals included in an overall package of enhanced security measures that could be taken in the event of terrorist threats on certain flights. It is in favour of joint discussions bringing together national authorities responsible for national security and those responsible for civil aviation. With this in mind, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 February 2004, the responsible Member of the Commission proposed that the Council take an overall look at the flight security issue in order to arrive at a common position.

Part of this work has already started with Austria's organisation of a seminar on Sky Marshals, which was held on 1/2 March 2004.

On the basis of the work carried out by the Commission in conjunction with the heads of the civil aviation authorities in the Member States, the Council Presidency, acting on behalf of the Community and its Member States, has written to the International Civil Aviation Organisation inviting it to address this issue and provide the signatory States with advice.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/820 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/820

---

(2004/C 84 E/0915)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0615/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Role of certificates in rules of origin

| 1. | In answer to my written question of 8 May 2003 (E-1590/03 (1)), the Commission says that it ‘(...) does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin (...)’.
  Is the Commission aware of the van der Rijken/Hoogerwerff case (application REM 4/2002)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In answer to my written question of 8 May 2003 (E-1590/03 (1)), the Commission says that it ‘(...) does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin (...)’.

Is the Commission aware of the van der Rijken/Hoogerwerff case (application REM 4/2002)?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with the general principles of sound administration that a trader such as Mr van der Rijken who relies on legally valid certificates of origin issued by a Member State should incur penalties in another Member State as a result of mistakes made by the Member State that issued the original certificate? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with the general principles of sound administration that a trader such as Mr van der Rijken who relies on legally valid certificates of origin issued by a Member State should incur penalties in another Member State as a result of mistakes made by the Member State that issued the original certificate?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to re-examine in this case, particularly since Mr van der Rijken was acting in good faith and the matter has now been going on for some time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to re-examine in this case, particularly since Mr van der Rijken was acting in good faith and the matter has now been going on for some time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that application REM 04/2002 was the subject of a Commission decision of 23 December 2002. It is therefore well aware of this case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that application REM 04/2002 was the subject of a Commission decision of 23 December 2002. It is therefore well aware of this case.

| 2. | One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be established under the Community's non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin, where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for preferential rates of duty.
  The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products. As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the interested party's responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD.
  The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the Community Customs Code (2). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in the case of an error by the competent customs authorities.
  In Mr van der Rijken's case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant to the recovery of the duties concerned.
  Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs' acceptance of the import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code. On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods were of Chinese origin. |
| --- | --- |

2.

One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be established under the Community's non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin, where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for preferential rates of duty.

The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products. As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the interested party's responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD.

The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the Community Customs Code (2). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in the case of an error by the competent customs authorities.

In Mr van der Rijken's case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant to the recovery of the duties concerned.

Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs' acceptance of the import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code. On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods were of Chinese origin.

| 3. | The Commission is not therefore able to re-examine this case, especially as Mr van der Rijken, as already explained, could not use the presentation of origin certificates as evidence. The rules in force do not require such certificates to be presented and Mr van der Rijken was solely responsible for furnishing proof of the goods' origin. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is not therefore able to re-examine this case, especially as Mr van der Rijken, as already explained, could not use the presentation of origin certificates as evidence. The rules in force do not require such certificates to be presented and Mr van der Rijken was solely responsible for furnishing proof of the goods' origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 111 E, 15.1.2004, p. 201.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/822 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/822

---

(2004/C 84 E/0916)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Decision by the Dutch parliament to expel thousands of immigrants

On 17 February 2004 the Dutch parliament adopted a government bill to expel some 26 000 immigrants and refugees who have been living in the country for years, including many young people born in the Netherlands. The bill also provides for new, more stringent conditions for granting asylum to immigrants, in line with the tough immigration policy pursued by the Dutch Government over the last few years. The majority of Dutch society, together with scores of non-governmental organisations, have declared their opposition to this inhumane and racist decision. The UN High Commission for Refugees has also expressed its opposition to the plan, since many immigrants in the Netherlands face serious problems, and there is no prospect of repatriating them safely to their countries of origin.

Will the Commission say whether it considers that the specific measures to expel immigrants from the Netherlands by force are compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Tampere commitments to draw up an integrated European asylum and immigration policy with transparent rules based on European humanitarian values and respect for the dignity of the human person?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission was not sent the Government Bill adopted by the Dutch Parliament on 17 February 2004.

As far as the Commission is aware, the national measures at stake concern only rejected asylum seekers. The Dutch Aliens law provides for a general possibility of review by Courts of negative decisions. Courts are competent to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the removals would be in accordance with obligations under international law, in particular under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission would like to underline that, in general, the possibility of return of rejected asylum seekers could be the logical consequence where the outcome of an asylum procedure is negative for the applicant, when the procedure was fair and allowed for all needs for international protection to be examined. A final negative decision implies that the person at stake was not found to be in need of international protection. If there are no other grounds for legal stay, return can be implemented.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/822 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/822

---

(2004/C 84 E/0917)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0621/04

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Revision of TEN-T

A revision of the EU's Trans-European Networks — Transport (TEN-T) is currently under discussion. A new concept, ‘Motorways of the Sea’, is being introduced in this connection, which can be endorsed in theory but, in practice, there is a great risk of distortion of competition depending on the implementation. In the light of this situation.

Would the Commission provide clarification on the following points:

| — | can ships be regarded as infrastructure in the context of TEN-T and, therefore, be built and purchased using TEN-T finance; |
| --- | --- |

—

can ships be regarded as infrastructure in the context of TEN-T and, therefore, be built and purchased using TEN-T finance;

| — | must support for ‘Motorways of the Sea’ projects always be provided by way of a tendering procedure in the Member State concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

must support for ‘Motorways of the Sea’ projects always be provided by way of a tendering procedure in the Member State concerned;

| — | will discounts on port dues, stevedoring, pilot services etc. in specific ports in connection with the opening of new routes be taken into account within the ceiling for state aid for the opening of such new routes? |
| --- | --- |

—

will discounts on port dues, stevedoring, pilot services etc. in specific ports in connection with the opening of new routes be taken into account within the ceiling for state aid for the opening of such new routes?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 on the revision of the Community Guidelines on the development of the TEN-T network (1), proposes amongst other priority projects the ‘Motorways of the Sea’. This concept was already announced by the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (2) which was presented by the Commission in 2001. The Commission is of the opinion, that this concept has to be applied in a way adapted to the different areas. Whilst Community financial support to the construction of infrastructures as part of the Motorways of the Sea projects is sometimes enough for the successful implementation, sometimes financial incentives beyond the purely infrastructure part may be necessary. This is why the Commission has proposed the possibility of EU co-financing of start-up aid for shipping companies of the motorways of the sea limited to two years, based upon a thorough tendering procedure. Such a support would be applied in accordance with the Community guidelines on state aids with maritime transport published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) on the 17 January 2004 which allow start-up aids for a maximum period of three years.

This proposal is now under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

(2)  COM(2001) 370 final.

(3)  OJ C 13, 17.1.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/823 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/823

---

(2004/C 84 E/0918)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Schedules of airlines from third countries

Following the recent tragic crash of the Flash Airlines plane from Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, the United Kingdom published a list of third countries airlines which are banned from using its airspace since they fail to comply with the international safety rules laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization. One of the airlines blacklisted in this way is Albanian Airlines, which operates a flight three or four times a week between Athens and Tirana.

Will the Commission say:

| 1. | Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the Chicago Convention? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the Chicago Convention?

| 2. | Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines using Community airports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines using Community airports?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At present there are no provisions obliging the Member States to give the Commission the information requested by the Honourable Member. The Commission is not therefore in possession of the information and would invite the Honourable Member to contact the competent national authorities directly. In contrast, as the Honourable Member will be able to confirm, the Directive mentioned below will give the Commission access to such information.

The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council due to be adopted in April 2004 on third countries' aircraft calling at Community airports (1) provides scope for national authorities to check the conformity of third countries' aircraft with international safety standards. It also provides for an exchange of information on this subject between the Member States and the Commission, the possibility of grounding dangerous aircraft and a procedure whereby a decision by one Member State to ban an airline from using its airspace can be extended throughout the Community.

---

(1)  Not yet published.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/824 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/824

---

(2004/C 84 E/0919)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/04

by Willi Piecyk (PSE), Gerhard Schmid (PSE) and Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Trans-European Networks — development of the Danube

As part of the revision of the Trans-European Networks, the Commission has proposed that development of the Danube should be a priority project. However, the Commission's aims in terms of the extent of development or the depths to be reached are not clear.

In the current debate and in various documents, reference is constantly being made to the so-called ‘Van Miert Group’ recommendations, which firstly identify a number of bottlenecks in the Danube and then propose that improvements be made to these bottlenecks to achieve a draught of 2,5 metres.

A draught of 2,5 metres is not specifically mentioned or called for in these documents, however, and this allows the Member States broad scope for interpretation and creates uncertainty about the extent of development envisaged for the Danube.

Environmentally and economically speaking, the decision on this issue is of vital importance. The more the depth increases, the greater the impact on the Danube's ecosystem and the higher the costs.

| 1. | With this in mind, is the possible co-financing of the Danube projects based on achieving a specific depth? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With this in mind, is the possible co-financing of the Danube projects based on achieving a specific depth?

| 2. | If so, what would that be? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what would that be?

| 3. | If not, does the Commission believe that the aim of generally improving the stretches defined as bottlenecks is sufficient to be able to apply for and receive financial support as part of the Trans-European Networks? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, does the Commission believe that the aim of generally improving the stretches defined as bottlenecks is sufficient to be able to apply for and receive financial support as part of the Trans-European Networks?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Rhine-Meuse-Main-Danube corridor is a major freight route connecting the North Sea with the Black Sea. Several sections of this waterway pose navigability problems since the draught is less than 2,8 metres at some times of year. The ‘Van Miert Group’ had recommended a minimum draught of 2,5 metres along the entire length of the waterway to give access to vessels of up to 3 000 tonnes.

In its decision of 1 October 2003 (1) the Commission proposes this transport axis as a priority project and identifies a series of bottlenecks which need to be removed in order best to use this transport mode in the interest of the enlarged Europe.

The Commission did not propose technical standards for the improvement of navigability for this project due to the fact that Member States have to go through a series of legal, technical and environmental studies in the phase of project planning before putting any specific possible conditions.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/825 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/825

---

(2004/C 84 E/0920)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/04

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Official Development Assistance (ODA) of the Union: funding by Member States, actions in the Balkans and application of conditionality and Community rules

Funding of development aid by the Union fell from 0,45 % in 1990 to 0,33 % in 2001, which is significantly below the political commitment of 0,7 % GDP announced by the UN and the Göteborg European Council. The Council has therefore included a binding commitment for ODA to reach 0,39 % of GDP by 2006 in the Community acquis for the new Member States as an interim step to eventually reaching 0,7 % of GDP.

Since in many Member States implementation of ODA is lagging behind, for instance in Greece's five-year programme for development cooperation and aid (2002-2006), will the Commission say:

| 1. | What is the percentage ODA of the Union and each individual Member State for 2002 and 2003, and how much does this amount to in millions of euros (EUR) in the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the percentage ODA of the Union and each individual Member State for 2002 and 2003, and how much does this amount to in millions of euros (EUR) in the Member States?

| 2. | Why has Greece's five-year programme for development cooperation and aid (2002-2006) for the Balkans, the Black Sea, etc. been delayed, what is the overall level of appropriations spent (commitment appropriations) and what percentage of Greece's ODA does this represent for 2002 and 2003? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why has Greece's five-year programme for development cooperation and aid (2002-2006) for the Balkans, the Black Sea, etc. been delayed, what is the overall level of appropriations spent (commitment appropriations) and what percentage of Greece's ODA does this represent for 2002 and 2003?

| 3. | Is the ODA of Member States of the Union in the Balkans linked to actions of the European Agency for Reconstruction (1), the implementation of the CARDS (2) programme and the Stability Pact for South East Europe, and what is the Union's contribution within the framework of the implementation of Greece's ODA in the Balkans, on the basis of plans for infrastructures and public works (networks, roads etc.)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the ODA of Member States of the Union in the Balkans linked to actions of the European Agency for Reconstruction (1), the implementation of the CARDS (2) programme and the Stability Pact for South East Europe, and what is the Union's contribution within the framework of the implementation of Greece's ODA in the Balkans, on the basis of plans for infrastructures and public works (networks, roads etc.)?

| 4. | Is assistance being suspended in the event of a failure to respect human rights and are Community rules being respected (for instance, on public procurement contracts etc.) by the services or bodies which have undertaken to implement the Union's ODA plans and programmes and, if so, which regions are concerned? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is assistance being suspended in the event of a failure to respect human rights and are Community rules being respected (for instance, on public procurement contracts etc.) by the services or bodies which have undertaken to implement the Union's ODA plans and programmes and, if so, which regions are concerned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Questions relating to Greece's bilateral assistance fall outside the remit of Directorate-General External Relations (DG RELEX).

In the interests of making the Community assistance cohesive and more efficient and complementary, the Member States and the Commission regularly exchange information on the operations they intend to implement. This is done in the countries concerned at the level of Community Delegations/European Agency for Reconstruction and Member States' Embassies and in the CARDS committee, which is composed of representatives of all Member States. Practical arrangements for on-the-spot coordination are covered by guidelines approved by the CARDS Committee and meetings with Member States take place on a regular basis in the countries of the region. The Commission further encourages coordination and cooperation with international financial institutions, United Nations cooperation programmes and other donors. Such co-ordination is secured e.g. through the Community/World Bank Joint Office. The Stability Pact specifically acts to ensure co-ordination of assistance of a regional nature, i.e. assistance covering two and more countries of the region.

A precondition for the Western Balkan countries to receive assistance is that they respect democratic principles, the rule of law, human and minority rights, fundamental freedoms and the principles of international law. Article 5 of the CARDS Regulation (3) states that if these principles are not respected, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take appropriate measures. Community assistance shall also be subject to the conditions defined by the Council in its Conclusions of 29 April 1997, in particular as regards the recipients' undertaking to carry out democratic, economic and institutional reforms.

Community assistance is being implemented by the European Agency for Reconstruction in Serbia and Montenegro and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Commission's de-concentrated delegations are responsible for implementing Community assistance in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia. The regional CARDS programme is implemented by DG EuropAid Co-operation Office (AIDCO).

---

(1)  Regulation 2415/2001/EC of 10.12.2001, OJ L 327, 12.12.2001 (amending Regulations 2666/2000/EC and 2667/2000 of 5.12.2000, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000).

(2)  Programme for Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilization. Regulation 2666/2000/EC, 5.12.2000, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC and 1999/311/EC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/826 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/826

---

(2004/C 84 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/04

by Ioannis Marinos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Abolition of the interest rate subsidy for border regions in Greece

The Chamber of Commerce of the Dodecanese has complained that the Greek Government has decided to abolish Joint Ministerial Decisions 2041901/16.5.1989 and 2078809/10.10.1989 authorising ‘the payment of a 3 % difference in interest, to be charged to the joint account of Law 128/1975, in respect of updated balances of loans granted for the working capital of commercial and craft undertakings based in the prefectures of Evros, Rodopi, Xanthi, the Dodecanese, Lesbos, Chios and Samos.’

Recent ministerial decisions (9034/B.289/10.2.2003 and 37497/B. 1232/2.6.2003) have amended the above Joint Ministerial Decisions of 1989, and it has been decided that craft and commercial undertakings in border regions shall be subsidised for the entire amount by bank loans up to 20 % of the annual turnover for the previous year or the last twelve months for newly founded undertakings and that the subsidy provided for by Joint Ministerial Decision 2041901/16.5.1989 shall be granted until 31.12.2004.

A letter from the Ministry of Finance (Protocol 80771/B.2334, dated 2.12.2003) states that the reason for the abolition of the interest rate subsidy in border regions of Greece is that ‘given our role in the EU, it is not advisable that interest rate subsidies be granted without an expiry date or limits in respect of the sum granted, even in the case of urgent socio-economic circumstances affecting the less developed regions of the country.’

Does the EU really impose this restriction? Is it contrary to Community law to subsidise interest rates — as the Greek authorities have been doing for 15 years — in regions which are mostly island regions whose per capita income is one of the lowest in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Regional aid, i.e. aid designed to develop the less-favoured regions by supporting investments and job creation in a sustainable context, can take the form of aid for initial investment and/or aid for job creation. Regional aid is defined as a percentage of eligible cost of initial investment or linked to job creation and is conditional on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a minimum period of five years. Therefore, unlimited interest rate subsidies, which by definition cannot be quantified, cannot be considered as investment aid even if they could be linked to eligible cost.

Exceptionally, in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 87 (3) (a) of the EC Treaty regional aid aimed at reducing a firm's current expenses (operating aid) can be granted under certain conditions, but the aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced (see point 4.15 of the guidelines on national regional aid (1)). Therefore, even if the measures involve operating aid, they should be limited in time and progressively reduced, which was apparently not the case until now.

The Commission can thus only welcome the Greek authorities' correct interpretation of the guidelines on national regional aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998 and OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/827 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/827

---

(2004/C 84 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC)

In a number of instances, disputes arise between the customs authorities and taxable persons as to whether or not customs duties are owed. Where, after years and years of litigation, it is shown that the persons concerned were indeed liable to pay customs duties (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC), that does not preclude the possibility that special conditions exist which make the payment of customs duties unreasonable for the persons concerned (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC).

Where a debtor submits an application pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC for the repayment of the customs duties levied, this is usually declared inadmissible on the grounds that the debtor did not submit the appropriate application within one year from the date on which the amount of the duties was communicated to him, as laid down in Article 239 of the CCC. The customs authorities argue thus: if the debtor has been issued with a demand for payment with which he disagrees, proceedings must be initiated in order to prove that the amount demanded was not legally owed (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC). Subsequently, an application must be submitted in accordance with Article 239 of the CCC to ensure that the deadlines are properly applied. In my opinion, that gives rise to a rather anomalous situation. In the appeal (and the further course of the procedure), the debtor argues that he is not liable for the customs duties levied; subsequently, in order not to forfeit his rights, the debtor has to submit a claim (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC) in which he actually admits to being liable for the duties but claims that special conditions exist which should exempt him from having to pay the customs duties levied. Given the all-embracing scope of Article 239 of the CCC, I cannot believe that that was ever the objective of the measure.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the repayment/remission procedures laid down in Articles 236 and 239 of the CCC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the repayment/remission procedures laid down in Articles 236 and 239 of the CCC?

| 2. | Can the Commission indicate why a period of three years is laid down in Article 236 of the CCC and a period of just one year in Article 239 of the CCC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission indicate why a period of three years is laid down in Article 236 of the CCC and a period of just one year in Article 239 of the CCC?

| 3. | Does the one-year period laid down in Article 239 of the CCC have a suspensive effect if the legality of the customs duties levied has not been irrevocably established? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the one-year period laid down in Article 239 of the CCC have a suspensive effect if the legality of the customs duties levied has not been irrevocably established?

| 4. | Can the Commission define the ‘exceptional cases’ to which reference is made in Article 239(2) of the CCC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission define the ‘exceptional cases’ to which reference is made in Article 239(2) of the CCC?

| 5. | Can a case which has been the subject of court proceedings for those reasons be regarded as an exceptional case? If not, then what is the function of Article 239 of the CCC? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can a case which has been the subject of court proceedings for those reasons be regarded as an exceptional case? If not, then what is the function of Article 239 of the CCC?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission has already started examining how Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (CCC) can be adapted to align its rules of procedure as far as possible on those of Article 236. However, it feels that the inconsistencies the Honourable Member sees in the procedures, depending on whether an application for remission/repayment is made on the basis of Article 236 or on the basis of Article 239, are only apparent.
  It should be noted that it is the Member States' customs authorities who establish the debt, communicate it to the debtor (thus affording him the possibility of contesting the existence or amount of the debt) and examine whether repayment/remission applications were lodged in keeping with the rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has already started examining how Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (CCC) can be adapted to align its rules of procedure as far as possible on those of Article 236. However, it feels that the inconsistencies the Honourable Member sees in the procedures, depending on whether an application for remission/repayment is made on the basis of Article 236 or on the basis of Article 239, are only apparent.

It should be noted that it is the Member States' customs authorities who establish the debt, communicate it to the debtor (thus affording him the possibility of contesting the existence or amount of the debt) and examine whether repayment/remission applications were lodged in keeping with the rules.

| 2. | The periods for submitting the application differ depending on whether it is based on Article 236 or Article 239 of the Code as the grounds for repayment/remission are themselves different. Taxable persons invoking Article 236 of the Code consider that a customs debt does not exist so it is only right that they be allowed the same time (three years) to obtain repayment/remission as that granted to the customs authorities to notify the amount of the debt (CCC Article 221(2)). On the other hand, in the cases referred to in Article 239 of the Code, the customs debt does exist but for reasons of fairness it is not appropriate to collect or repay it. Article 900 of the Code's implementing provisions (1) lists situations where duties may be repaid or remitted on the basis of Article 239. A period of one year is normally sufficient for a trader to realise that a particular situation applies to him so that he can then request repayment or remission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The periods for submitting the application differ depending on whether it is based on Article 236 or Article 239 of the Code as the grounds for repayment/remission are themselves different. Taxable persons invoking Article 236 of the Code consider that a customs debt does not exist so it is only right that they be allowed the same time (three years) to obtain repayment/remission as that granted to the customs authorities to notify the amount of the debt (CCC Article 221(2)). On the other hand, in the cases referred to in Article 239 of the Code, the customs debt does exist but for reasons of fairness it is not appropriate to collect or repay it. Article 900 of the Code's implementing provisions (1) lists situations where duties may be repaid or remitted on the basis of Article 239. A period of one year is normally sufficient for a trader to realise that a particular situation applies to him so that he can then request repayment or remission.

| 3. | The periods referred to in Articles 236 and 239 commence as soon as the amount of the duties has been communicated to the debtor. An appeal does not have suspensory effect. So, as the legislation stands, traders contesting the existence of a debt must also submit an application for repayment/remission within the period laid down in Article 239. In order to comply with the time limits, traders may have to take steps in parallel which should have a logical sequence but that procedure is not detrimental to them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The periods referred to in Articles 236 and 239 commence as soon as the amount of the duties has been communicated to the debtor. An appeal does not have suspensory effect. So, as the legislation stands, traders contesting the existence of a debt must also submit an application for repayment/remission within the period laid down in Article 239. In order to comply with the time limits, traders may have to take steps in parallel which should have a logical sequence but that procedure is not detrimental to them.

| 4. and 5. | As the Honourable Member points out, the one-year period referred to in Article 239 may be exceeded only in exceptional cases. In the absence of case law on this point, the Commission considers that this must be taken to mean the situations referred to in the second paragraph of Article 236(2) (unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). At any rate, the fact that the existence of the debt has been contested, possibly before the courts, does not constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Code. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

As the Honourable Member points out, the one-year period referred to in Article 239 may be exceeded only in exceptional cases. In the absence of case law on this point, the Commission considers that this must be taken to mean the situations referred to in the second paragraph of Article 236(2) (unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). At any rate, the fact that the existence of the debt has been contested, possibly before the courts, does not constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Code.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/829 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/829

---

(2004/C 84 E/0923)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0639/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   The Torrentes de Mácara on the river Ulha (Galicia): three priceless rapids threatened with destruction by the building of a dam

In the municipal district of Antas de Ulha, close to the Santiago Pilgrims' Way the Torrentes de Mácara are threatened with destruction by the building of a dam by the Unión Fenosa electricity company. We are speaking about a natural paradise consisting of three rapids spread over a distance of three kilometres. The dam would produce no more than an insignificant amount of electricity while the Torrentes contain seven potential habitats of Community interest, which have not yet been included in the Natura 2000 network. They also house a species included in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (1)). The building of the dam was senselessly authorised by the Galician Government. Is the Commission aware of this serious threat? Is it prepared to take steps to prevent the destruction of the Torrentes natural paradise? Does it know that the Coordenadora da Defesa dos Rios (Rivers Protection Association) has lodged complaints with the Galician Government and the Galician Water Department, the Galician Ombudsman and the Spanish Ombudsman, with a view to preserving the Torrentes and other parts of the river Ulha water system? What kind of environmental impact assessment was carried out? Is the Commission taking account of the fact that the bulk of the Ulha river system — the Ulha-Deza and Sobreiral of the river Arnego water system SCIs — is included in Natura 2000 network, and that the Mácara dam, quite apart from the damage done to the Alto Ulha, will also prejudice the future working of this already protected water system? Does the Commission know that seven new dams are planned within the Ulha-Deza-Arnego water system, although there is a great deal of protest in Galicia against such a development? Does it know why precisely those sections of the rivers where the seven dam schemes are sited were excluded from the Natura 2000 network, although they also meet the Directive's criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

In December 1997, the Spanish authorities proposed the area known as ‘Sistema Fluvial Ulla — Deza’, (ES1140001), as a Site of Community Importance (pSCI) with a view to the constitution of the Natura 2000 Network.

This site hosts important fish species, such as sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), twaite shad (Alosa fallax) and salmon (Salmo salar), as well as the following priority habitats of Community interest:

| — | Habitat type 4020: Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Habitat type 4020: Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix, and

| — | Habitat type 91 E0: Alluvial forest with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior. |
| --- | --- |

—

Habitat type 91 E0: Alluvial forest with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior.

One of the main threats for this site, as identified in the Natura 2000 standard data form, is the loss of habitats.

The Commission considers that the Spanish authorities need to propose further sites in the region of Galicia to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, for the Atlantic bio-geographic region. At least six types of habitats have been identified as being insufficiently represented in the Spanish proposal and Galicia has been identified as a region where new sites should be proposed. In addition, the Commission considers that the Spanish authorities should classify further sites as Special Protection Areas in the region of Galicia within the terms of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds (2).

The Commission was not aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. For this reason, it has made representations to the Spanish authorities to ensure the correct application of environmental Community law in this case.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, as modified, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/830 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/830

---

(2004/C 84 E/0924)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0647/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Urban waste water treatment in Benidorm, (Alicante province) Spain

The way in which the water treatment plant in Benidorm pours inadequately treated waste water into the sea, polluting the unspoilt and protected Sierra Helada coastal area, with serious consequences, contravenes Community legislation on the environment, in particular Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment. Under the directive, towns the size of Benidorm were to have a system for the collection and stringent treatment of urban waste water by 31 December 2000 at the latest.

Can the Commission request information from the Spanish authorities regarding the volume and composition of the waste water being poured into the sea in the environmentally sensitive area of Sierra Helada?

Can the Commission confirm whether the quality of the maritime waters in this area conforms to the guideline values under Directive 76/160/EEC (2) concerning the quality of bathing water?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in this instance to ensure that Community law is correctly applied?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

In terms of Community law, Council Directive 91/271/EEC (3) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment requires Member States to ensure that all agglomerations with more than 2 000 population equivalents (PE: the organic pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day) are provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. Smaller agglomerations shall be subject to appropriate treatment if the waste water is collected. The deadlines for providing those systems are 31 December 1998 (tertiary treatment), 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the agglomeration and the sensitivity of the recipient waters.

The Commission is verifying the implementation of the Directive. In order to receive updated information for the third report on the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive, the Commission sent out questionnaires to Member States in 2003.

Concerning Benidorm, in 2003 the Spanish Authorities provided the Commission with the information that the agglomeration is of a size of 347 041 PE and that treatment could be provided beyond the standard secondary treatment since 2002.

The Commission will verify with the Spanish Authorities the performance of the Benidorm treatment plant, and will consequently inform the Honourable Member.

With regard to the quality of bathing waters, Benidorm has five monitored beaches. The information sent to the Commission by the Spanish Authorities showed that all of them comply with the guideline values under the Bathing Water Directive (4).

In the case of non-compliance, the Commission will, as in similar cases, take the necessary action in its role as Guardian of the Treaty, including appropriate legal action.

---

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

(3)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC, OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998, OJ L 67, 3.7.1998, p. 29.

(4)  Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/831 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/831

---

(2004/C 84 E/0925)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Incorrect transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC into Spanish law

Judging that Spain failed to transpose correctly into national law, within the prescribed period, the legal, regulatory and administrative provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the Commission has launched infringement proceedings.

Can the Commission state what stage these infringement proceedings have now reached?

Can the Commission confirm, with regard to this directive, that in cases where a Member State has failed to transpose a given directive into national law within the prescribed period, individuals have rights they can invoke before a national court against the authorities of the Member State in question?

Is the Commission aware of the exclusion of non-civilian employees in the Spanish civil service from the scope of Law 31/1995 on the prevention of risks at work? Does this exclusion comply with EU legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission began infringement proceedings against Spain as it considered that the latter had not correctly transposed Directive 89/391/EEC (2) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, in so far as the scope of Law 31/1995 on the prevention of risks at work excludes non-civilian employees in the civil service. These infringement proceedings are currently before the Court of Justice (Case C-1 32/04).

The Commission refers to the case law of the Court of Justice in relation to the possibility of individuals invoking the provisions of this Directive in national courts where the necessary measures have not been taken at national level to transpose the Directive or where it has been transposed incorrectly and/or incompletely.

According to this case law, the national courts are under a duty to interpret national law, as far as possible, in conformity with the Directives and in such a way as to achieve the results pursued by the Directives.

Where such a harmonious interpretation is not possible, an individual can rely directly on a directive against a Member State, e.g. in an application against a public employer, if the content of the directive in question is sufficiently clear and unconditional to have direct effect. In such a case, every court of a Member State must apply Community law in its entirety and protect the rights which Community law confers directly on individuals, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it (see e.g. Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 21 and Case C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR 10691, paragraph 69).

In addition, a Member State may also be liable for any loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of its breach of Community law (see in particular the judgments of 19 November 1991, Francovich and others, C-6/90 and C-9/90, ECR p. 1-5357, paragraph 35; of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, C-46/93 and C-48/93, ECR p. I-1029, and of 4 July 2000, Haim, C-424/97, ECR p. I-5123).

In these judgments the Court of Justice noted that the principle that Member States are obliged to make good loss or damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible is applicable where the national legislature was responsible for the breaches.

In the case of a Member State which fails to fulfil its obligation under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed by a directive, the full effectiveness of that rule of Community law requires that there should be a right to reparation where three conditions are met, that is to say, first, that the result prescribed by the directive should entail the granting of rights to individuals; secondly, that it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive; and thirdly, that there should be a causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.

Subject to that reservation, it is in accordance with the rules of national law on liability that the Member State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss and damage caused by a breach of Community law for which it can be held responsible, given that the conditions laid down by the applicable national legislation must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims and must not be so framed as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/832 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/832

---

(2004/C 84 E/0926)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0654/04

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 March 2004)

Subject:   Brenner axis

Is the Commission aware that the situation along the Brenner axis between Kufstein and Verona (air and noise pollution and fine dust particles) has become intolerable for the residents of the narrow Alpine valleys? Pollution levels frequently rise far above the permitted limit, resulting in damage to the health of those affected. With the referendum decision in Switzerland not to build a second tube for the Gotthard tunnel and EU enlargement, heavy goods transit traffic will increase even more spectacularly.

In view of these facts, are counter-measures not urgently required?

The real costs provide a key to the short-term solution. To cut down on the volume of empty vehicles and waste transporters, the tolls for all HGVs could be raised in this sensitive area. It is a choice between protecting the health of people living along this stretch of road or unchecked goods traffic.

In the long term, this unjustifiable situation must be rectified using a concept adapted to the future (base tunnel and modern logistics), and an EU ban on transit, to force all heavy goods transit traffic off the Brenner motorway and under the mountain or onto the railway tracks. In this regard, I refer once again to the ATT3 project and ask why the Commission does not immediately announce an exemption for this sensitive area with regard to the toll fee between Kufstein and Verona. Why have some of the profits made north and south of the Brenner Pass not been invested in the planned base tunnel included in the TEN guidelines adopted in 1996, and why is this 21st-century project relying on 19th-century logistics?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the problems on the Brenner axis to which the Honourable Member refers. It takes a coordinated approach to the problem of land transport in sensitive areas. This consists of various measures, in particular the introduction of a new charging scheme for road haulage, liberalisation of the rail sector and opening it up to competition, the promotion of intermodal transport (the Marco Polo programme), and the development of railway infrastructure. With regard to the latter, it should be noted that, since the mid-1990s, the Commission has insisted that the Brenner base tunnel be considered a priority infrastructure project of European interest and that the Member States concerned should implement this project as soon as possible.

On road charging, it should be noted that Directive 1999/62/CE (1) does not allow the Commission to adopt derogatory measures as regards the toll between Kufstein and Verona, since the toll charge must correspond to the costs of constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure network concerned. However, the Directive does allow the Member States concerned, Italy and Austria, to allocate a percentage of the amount of the tolls to the funding of other transport infrastructure, for example the Brenner base tunnel.

The Commission proposal (2) to amend the Eurovignette Directive provides for specific measures in particularly sensitive areas. In order to cover the cross-financing of the investment costs of other transport infrastructure of high European interest in the same corridor (for example, the Brenner base tunnel), Member States may increase tolls by up to 25 % in these areas. Mountainous areas, which include the Alps, are specifically referred to. It should also be noted that the proposal for a Directive provides that the rates at which tolls are charged should vary according to several criteria, which more especially will enable the Member States to reflect their concerns about congestion and the environment when implementing road charges. The Member States will therefore be able to vary the charges according to the particular route of the road network, the environmental sensitivity of the area or the risk of accidents. All of these measures should enable Austria to introduce a system of tolls which reflects the costs engendered by infrastructure use and contributes to an efficient and sustainable transport policy, in particular in the Tyrol.

Whatever decisions are taken on the modal transfer from road to rail, they must take account of the obligations arising from the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services as well as the railway capacity made available by operators.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2)  COM(2003) 448 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/833 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/833

---

(2004/C 84 E/0927)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Human rights in Algeria

In light of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Algeria and in particular Article 2, can the Commission inform me what continuing action it is taking and will take in relation to human rights in Algeria?

| 1. | What is the Commission doing to ensure that the Algerian authorities have at their disposal relevant expertise and equipment in dealing with the crimes against humanity committed throughout the last decade and that they respect recommended procedures in exhuming mortal remains from mass graves? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that the Algerian authorities have at their disposal relevant expertise and equipment in dealing with the crimes against humanity committed throughout the last decade and that they respect recommended procedures in exhuming mortal remains from mass graves?

| 2. | What is the Commission doing to ensure that families of the ‘disappeared’ in Algeria are able to carry out their campaigning work as legally registered organisations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that families of the ‘disappeared’ in Algeria are able to carry out their campaigning work as legally registered organisations?

| 3. | Has the Commission asked the Algerian authorities to extend an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (who has asked to gain entry to Algeria since 1997)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission asked the Algerian authorities to extend an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (who has asked to gain entry to Algeria since 1997)?

| 4. | Will the Commission press the Algerian authorities for concrete information on the alleged trials of some 20 security officers following the killing of dozens of unarmed protesters in Kabylia and to make public the information on these and similar trials? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission press the Algerian authorities for concrete information on the alleged trials of some 20 security officers following the killing of dozens of unarmed protesters in Kabylia and to make public the information on these and similar trials?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

| 1. | The Honourable Member rightly mentions Article 2 of the Association Agreement as an important legal basis on which to build dialogue and cooperation in the human rights field.
  The Association Agreement which was signed in April 2002 has so far not been ratified and is not in force. Nonetheless, human rights and democracy form an integral part of the EU's political dialogue with all third countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member rightly mentions Article 2 of the Association Agreement as an important legal basis on which to build dialogue and cooperation in the human rights field.

The Association Agreement which was signed in April 2002 has so far not been ratified and is not in force. Nonetheless, human rights and democracy form an integral part of the EU's political dialogue with all third countries.

| 2. | Regarding assistance to the Algerian authorities to help them properly and concretely deal with these issues, MEDA cooperation for the period 2004-2006 focuses on ‘third generation’ programmes, that is projects that support good governance, and in particular justice, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media. This is in line with the 2003 Commission Communication on Human Rights which aims at maximising the effectiveness of the instruments at the disposal of the EU and its Mediterranean partners in the field of human rights and democracy. Algeria is also a focus country under the 2003-2004 European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. This Programme aims at supporting NGOs through micro projects directed towards civil society.
  Furthermore, pending ratification of the Association Agreement, the Commission has continued to raise the issue of human rights and in particular that of the ‘disappeared’ and ‘mass graves’ in various fora and most notably at the last Troïka meeting which took place in Rome in November 2003. In its talks with the Algerian authorities, the Commission has in particular highlighted the need to grant families' associations legal recognition if proper interaction with those directly concerned is to be guaranteed in this process.
  It is the Commission's intention, with active support from the Council, to raise this issue again following the 8 April 2004 presidential election. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regarding assistance to the Algerian authorities to help them properly and concretely deal with these issues, MEDA cooperation for the period 2004-2006 focuses on ‘third generation’ programmes, that is projects that support good governance, and in particular justice, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media. This is in line with the 2003 Commission Communication on Human Rights which aims at maximising the effectiveness of the instruments at the disposal of the EU and its Mediterranean partners in the field of human rights and democracy. Algeria is also a focus country under the 2003-2004 European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. This Programme aims at supporting NGOs through micro projects directed towards civil society.

Furthermore, pending ratification of the Association Agreement, the Commission has continued to raise the issue of human rights and in particular that of the ‘disappeared’ and ‘mass graves’ in various fora and most notably at the last Troïka meeting which took place in Rome in November 2003. In its talks with the Algerian authorities, the Commission has in particular highlighted the need to grant families' associations legal recognition if proper interaction with those directly concerned is to be guaranteed in this process.

It is the Commission's intention, with active support from the Council, to raise this issue again following the 8 April 2004 presidential election.

| 3. | The EU has repeatedly raised with Algeria the issue of the fight against torture as well as cooperation with the human rights Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations, including the pending request by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on torture, ‘inter alia’ in its speeches before the UN Commission on Human Rights. The principle of promoting full cooperation by all States with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations forms a central part of EU human rights policy.
  The Commission will raise the issue of the killing of protesters in Kabylia, in its forthcoming talks with the Algerian authorities.
  Furthermore, the Commission would like to underline the utmost importance it attaches to another human rights issue, namely the revision of the Family code's which defines equality between men and women within the family. This and other issues will be raised in its next meetings with the Algerian authorities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EU has repeatedly raised with Algeria the issue of the fight against torture as well as cooperation with the human rights Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations, including the pending request by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on torture, ‘inter alia’ in its speeches before the UN Commission on Human Rights. The principle of promoting full cooperation by all States with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations forms a central part of EU human rights policy.

The Commission will raise the issue of the killing of protesters in Kabylia, in its forthcoming talks with the Algerian authorities.

Furthermore, the Commission would like to underline the utmost importance it attaches to another human rights issue, namely the revision of the Family code's which defines equality between men and women within the family. This and other issues will be raised in its next meetings with the Algerian authorities.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/834 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/834

---

(2004/C 84 E/0928)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/04

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Misfuelling of motor vehicles

Is the Commission aware that hundreds of thousands of drivers across the EU each year inadvertently fill their vehicles with the wrong fuel, either petrol or diesel?

In the UK alone it is reported that some 120 000 misfuelling incidents take place at filling stations each year, resulting in costly service bills, damage to vehicles, and potential environmental pollution.

Possible solutions include altering the shape of fuel tanks and pipe nozzles to ensure that petrol and diesel systems are entirely separated, clearer markings, and use of audio warnings.

As vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers work on an EU-wide basis, will the Commission take the initiative to bring together interested parties to consider proposals for long-term solutions to the problem, and will the Commission consider legislative measures if voluntary agreement cannot be secured?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission acknowledges the risk, as identified by the Honourable Member, of mistakes being made by motorists when re-fuelling their vehicles at filling stations.

The Commission considered this matter in 1991, when the introduction into the market of vehicles provided with after-treatment systems, such as catalysts, made necessary certain provisions to prevent the use of leaded petrol in vehicles which should only accept unleaded petrol.

To this end, Council Directive 91/441/EEC of 26 June 1991 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles (1), establishes in its Annex I, that the inlet orifice of the fuel tank of a car intended to use unleaded petrol must be so designed that it prevents filling with a petrol pump delivery nozzle designed for leaded petrol.

Since the application of this Directive, petrol pump delivery nozzles with different diameters have been used to refill petrol cars using unleaded petrol or leaded petrol, and so costly confusion between the fuels being prevented.

Though this provision no longer has any relevance since leaded petrol is no longer permitted, this technical requirement would generally prevent a car running on unleaded petrol from being refuelled with diesel fuel. However, it would not prevent diesel cars from being refuelled with petrol.

With respect to the possible confusion between unleaded petrol and diesel fuel the Commission will consult all relevant stakeholders, i.e. vehicle manufacturers and fuel pump equipment manufacturers which are subject to the Machinery Directive (2), in order to assess all the aspects of the problem and of the practical implementation of possible solutions of a legislative or non-legislative nature.

---

(1)  OJ L 242, 30.8.1991.

(2)  Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery, OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/835 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/835

---

(2004/C 84 E/0929)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Efforts to adopt uniform and transparent rules on valuing the assets of financial institutions and the resistance of the EFR to the IASB

| 1. | The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), consisting of 14 prominent former industrialists, is currently drafting the uniform rules IAS 32 and IAS 39 for annual reports by businesses in Europe, as part of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Does the Commission intend to make these rules compulsory, as from the 2005 financial year, for all of the approximately 7 000 listed enterprises in Europe, so that they will be bound by uniform and thus comparable standards for determining the value of turnover, depreciation, derivatives, options and profits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), consisting of 14 prominent former industrialists, is currently drafting the uniform rules IAS 32 and IAS 39 for annual reports by businesses in Europe, as part of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Does the Commission intend to make these rules compulsory, as from the 2005 financial year, for all of the approximately 7 000 listed enterprises in Europe, so that they will be bound by uniform and thus comparable standards for determining the value of turnover, depreciation, derivatives, options and profits?

| 2. | What guarantee does the Commission have that the IAS/IFRS will adopt as a standard the most stringent rules which currently exist in the individual EU Member States concerning the book-keeping of enterprises and annual accounts, so that the efforts to adopt uniform rules do not result in more flexible rules which in practice will in some cases afford greater scope for action to the detriment of other businesses, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and customers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What guarantee does the Commission have that the IAS/IFRS will adopt as a standard the most stringent rules which currently exist in the individual EU Member States concerning the book-keeping of enterprises and annual accounts, so that the efforts to adopt uniform rules do not result in more flexible rules which in practice will in some cases afford greater scope for action to the detriment of other businesses, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and customers?

| 3. | Does the Commission anticipate that the introduction of such rules will render completely impossible any repetition of such scandals as those which have occurred at Ahold and Parmalat? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission anticipate that the introduction of such rules will render completely impossible any repetition of such scandals as those which have occurred at Ahold and Parmalat?

| 4. | Is the application of the proposed rules sufficiently public to ensure that organisations of outside stakeholders, the media and public opinion can gain a genuine understanding of what is actually happening inside individual listed enterprises? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the application of the proposed rules sufficiently public to ensure that organisations of outside stakeholders, the media and public opinion can gain a genuine understanding of what is actually happening inside individual listed enterprises?

| 5. | Is the Commission now aware of the objections to the IASB on the part of the European Financial Services Round Table (EFR) which was set up in March 2001 and which is frightened by the prospect that the public will be able to perceive annual fluctuations in the results of banks and insurers? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission now aware of the objections to the IASB on the part of the European Financial Services Round Table (EFR) which was set up in March 2001 and which is frightened by the prospect that the public will be able to perceive annual fluctuations in the results of banks and insurers?

| 6. | What will the Commission do to ensure that, by the intended date — 1 April 2004 — certainty exists regarding the introduction in the near future of IAS 32 and 39? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What will the Commission do to ensure that, by the intended date — 1 April 2004 — certainty exists regarding the introduction in the near future of IAS 32 and 39?

Source: De Volkskrant, 21 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

At the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) of 15 July 2003, the Commission and Member States confirmed their commitment to the European financial reporting strategy adopted by the Council and the Parliament in 2002 and to high quality accounting standards for the Union. The Commission and Member States underlined the need for international accounting standards to be adopted in the EU, as soon as possible, for application from 1 January 2005 onwards.

On 29 September 2003, the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 (1) endorsing into Community law all existing IAS with the exception at this stage of IAS 32 & 39 that were being revised by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

The IASB has yet to finalise IAS 39, a standard on the recognition and measurement of financial instruments. The Commission intends to examine it as soon as possible, together with IAS 32 issued in December 2003 by the IASB. This examination will be carried out on the basis of the opinion to be provided by the technical experts of EFRAG (2) and with the assistance of the EU Accounting Regulatory Committee.

The Commission considers that it is particularly important for the EU to have a sound and robust accounting standard on financial instruments in place in 2005, in order to achieve a higher degree of comparability between companies, notably in the banking and insurance industries, to provide better information to investors and stakeholders in general and to close possible accounting loopholes that could lead to the manipulation of accounts.

It is important for the IASB to ensure that IAS 39 remains both theoretically sound and applicable in practice. Both characteristics and the way they interact are at the heart of the present controversy about IAS 39. In particular, the banking and insurance industries fear, as illustrated by the position recently taken by the European Financial Services Round Table, that the media and the general public lack the capacity to distinguish between real volatility due to actual economic fluctuations and ‘artificial’ accounting volatility created by a complex financial reporting model that sometimes fits with difficulty bank's risk management practices. Considering the complexity of IAS 39 and the volume of transactions at stake, this fear has to be addressed.

In this context, the Commission has urged both the IASB and industry to pursue their dialogue in order to find an appropriate solution on the two remaining controversial issues raised by IAS39, namely macro-hedging (hedging effectiveness and hedging of core deposits) and the insurance measurement mismatch. Accounting standard-setting is a gradual process and the preference of the Commission would be for the IASB to find a temporary situation pending medium to long term improvements to the standards.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 of 29 September 2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 261, 13.10.2003.

(2)  the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/837 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/837

---

(2004/C 84 E/0930)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0663/04

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland

Finnish Members of the European Parliament are increasingly being contacted because the danger posed by wolves in Finland has grown. In areas bordered by small bodies of water, concentrations of wolves have grown to such an extent that some people are even in a state of panic. There are clear indications that numbers of wolves are increasing and that wolves are spreading into quite new areas.

The wolf stock in Finland forms part of a single stock with its counterpart in Russia, and if one bears this in mind, the total population could be as large as 10 000. The biggest problems in Finland exist in certain regions close to the eastern border: for example in Northern Karelia it has been proven that there are dozens of wolves living close to human habitations. In the Ruokolahti area there is a new concentration, which is preventing the holding of the traditional hunting dog championships there. Further north, the increase in the number of large predators will soon put an end to reindeer farming, which is a traditional source of livelihood there.

The view of local residents is that the existing blanket protection of wolves provided for by EU rules is creating an impossible state of affairs. In order to make it possible to issue hunting licences in ‘exceptional cases’ on account of the increase in numbers of wolves, it is necessary to have demonstrable proof of problems over a long period. People are wondering how many good elkhounds have to be lost first and whether a child has to die on the way to school before anything can be done about the situation. In a situation where people are in a state of panic, it is not enough for hunting licences to be granted only for the killing of ‘problem individuals’. The wolf stock ought to be controlled in such a way that wolves do not come into people's yards and gardens or impinge on routes between homes and schools causing fear and real danger.

At present, unfortunately, it seems that decisions are made on the basis of information which is years old and using only information supplied by environmental organisations, while the threat of legal action hangs over the national authorities. Such a policy does not help people who are constantly confronted by wolves.

I have studied the Commission's answer to question P-4034/03 (1), but would appreciate further clarification concerning it. What will the Commission do to ensure that the authorities are able — and dare — to react quickly to a situation, ‘inter alia’ by issuing hunting licences as needs dictate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, in joining the EU, Finland agreed to conform to the Community legislation and rules. Several large carnivores, such as wolf, brown bear and lynx, are protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) (hereafter Habitats Directive), Annex IV (a). These species are therefore subject to a strict protection scheme that requires, among others, that their deliberate killing is prohibited. The Directive does, however, recognize that in certain situations there may exist the need for derogation from this general rule of strict protection. These justifications, which include public safety and damage to agricultural interests are listed in Article 16 of the Directive. Member-States may apply these derogations provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area in Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in Annex V to the same Directive. This means that management measures may be used to control the population. Nevertheless, for species covered by this annex, the use of means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations is prohibited. This therefore applies to wolf populations in the reindeer herding area (3). It lies within the competence of the national authorities to take appropriate measures with due regard to the above. According to the information the Commission has received, there have been no reproductions of wolves in the reindeer herding area in recent years.

Information provided by the Finnish authorities to the Commission on reindeer mortality indicate that road kills (2 500 animals in 2002) are far more significant than predation by large carnivores (2-300 killed by wolves in 2002). The claim that the level of predation is in danger of putting an end to reindeer husbandry (200 000 animals in Finland 2002) is certainly not supported by the official data.

Outside the reindeer herding area killing of wolves is allowed only in accordance with Article 16 derogation, i.e. it is possible only in cases where there is no satisfactory alternative and provided that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The Commission is aware that the Finnish authorities are permitting a number of wolves to be killed every year by way of such derogations.

While it is true that there has been a small increase in wolf population in Finland during the recent years this has been from a very low figure. The current estimated population of 140 (official Finnish data) cannot be regarded as representing a favourable conservation status in the terms of the Habitats Directive. This assessment is not contested by the Finnish authorities since the official Red Data Book of endangered species published by the Ministry of Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute includes the wolf. This population level remains very low compared to a number of other Member States (e.g. Spain 2 000, Italy 500, Portugal 400).

The management of the species in the Annexes lies within the competence of the national authorities, taking into regard the requirements of the Directive. The Commission has discussed on a number of occasions the issue of wolf management in Finland with the national authorities and have encouraged them to formulate comprehensive policy and approach within an overall national management plan. The Finnish authorities agreed in July 2002 to prepare such a plan before the end of 2002. The Commission has yet to receive this plan.

---

(1)  See page 136.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3)  Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/838 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/838

---

(2004/C 84 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/04

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Legislation on yoghurt

The 15 Member States currently regulate the marketing of yoghurt on the sole basis of a Commission Communication of 1991, designed to interpret the Smanor ruling of the Court of Justice, which referred to a case involving the naming of the product. By virtue of this communication, the Member States are free to ban the use of the term ‘yoghurt’ on their territory for heat-treated products. The Communication makes three exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement of goods and the mutual recognition of sales terminology: caviar, vinegar and yoghurt. Various countries use the Communication to forbid the use of the term ‘yoghurt’ for pasteurised yoghurts, a practice which is a clear obstacle to the single market.

Given that the most recent scientific studies have shown that there is no evidence of the supposed benefits of yoghurt with live bacteria, what is the point of continuing this restriction on the free movement of goods, which furthermore infringes consumers' freedom of choice and their right to truthful information?

Does the Commission intend to do something to bring to an end, once and for all, all these obstacles to the completion of the Single Market, in the shape of measures to harmonise legislation on yoghurt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is examining the need to establish legislation on yoghurt and yoghurt-like products which includes the aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following that examination, which should be completed in the near future, where it is considered appropriate and necessary to establish additional legislation, the Commission will forward a proposal to the Parliament and to the Council.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/839 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/839

---

(2004/C 84 E/0932)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Irish Government's failure to cooperate with Lough Ree investigation

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of formal notice it sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with its investigations into complaints about the deterioration of water quality in Lough Ree, specifically in relation to taking account of the cumulative effects of new developments in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (1)?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission's letter of formal notice, referred to by the Honourable Member, addressed non-cooperation by Ireland consisting in a failure to respond to a request for information about compliance with environmental legislation in relation to Lough Ree, County Roscommon. Ireland subsequently provided a detailed response to the Commission's original information request. This response is considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the original complaint (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  P2001/4787.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/840 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/840

---

(2004/C 84 E/0933)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Medical certificates

Could the Commission confirm that medical certificates issued by the Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom should be valid as evidence in court cases in all Member States?

Does the Commission believe that refusal to accept these documents by a Member State would be a breach of EU laws? If so, which EU laws are applicable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not possess all the information required to answer the Honourable Member's question in greater detail. The question did not state for which purposes medical certificates issued by the British authorities were submitted to a court in another Member State.

Within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (1), on the coordination of Member States' social security schemes and of its implementing rules (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (2)), the matter of the validity of medical certificates issued in another Member State has been submitted to the Court of Justice on several occasions: Cases C-22/86 Rindone (judgment of 12 March 1987), C-45/90 Paletta I (judgment of 3 June 1992), Case C-206/94 Paletta II (judgment of 2 May 1996). Accordingly, for the purpose of providing cash benefits or benefits in kind (Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72), the competent institution is bound de facto and de jure by the medical findings of the institution at the place of domicile or residence on the commencement and duration of incapacity in cases where the interested party is not examined by a doctor of its own choice, as authorised by Article 18(5) (Paletta). However, this does not imply that employers are not allowed to submit evidence pursuant to which the national courts decide that abuse or fraudulent conduct took place because the employee in question was not sick even though he/she claimed incapacity to work under aforementioned Article 18. It should also be noted that doctors based in other Member States must be regarded as providing guarantees equivalent to those provided by doctors based on the national territory (Case C-156/96 Kohll, judgment of 28 April 1998).

In order to give a more precise answer to the Honourable Member, the Commission would need further details.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2)  OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/840 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/840

---

(2004/C 84 E/0934)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by countries such as America and Russia

| 1. | What is the Commission's view of the repeated indications that the US Administration does not regard the EU as a federation of states with which to make uniform agreements on international relations, trade and aviation but as a loose collection of individual states that are to be treated differently according to the extent to which they agree with American views and interests, as shown not least by America's attempts to make agreements with individual current and future Member States over a boycott of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and by the varying status awarded to individual EU Member States when public works contracts in Iraq are granted to companies located in EU Member States (see ‘inter alia’ the reply to my Written Question E-3948/03 (1))? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission's view of the repeated indications that the US Administration does not regard the EU as a federation of states with which to make uniform agreements on international relations, trade and aviation but as a loose collection of individual states that are to be treated differently according to the extent to which they agree with American views and interests, as shown not least by America's attempts to make agreements with individual current and future Member States over a boycott of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and by the varying status awarded to individual EU Member States when public works contracts in Iraq are granted to companies located in EU Member States (see ‘inter alia’ the reply to my Written Question E-3948/03 (1))?

| 2. | What is the Commission's view of the fact that it would appear that the example set by the USA is now being followed by Russia, as evidenced by Russia's refusal to extend the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU to cover the ten new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004 because of the economic disadvantages that Russia perceives would result from its treating all EU Member States equally? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission's view of the fact that it would appear that the example set by the USA is now being followed by Russia, as evidenced by Russia's refusal to extend the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU to cover the ten new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004 because of the economic disadvantages that Russia perceives would result from its treating all EU Member States equally?

| 3. | To what extent does the fact that certain EU Member States are permanent members of the UN Security Council, are nuclear powers and include in their territory areas geographically not part of the continent of Europe, play a role in the conduct of third countries towards the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent does the fact that certain EU Member States are permanent members of the UN Security Council, are nuclear powers and include in their territory areas geographically not part of the continent of Europe, play a role in the conduct of third countries towards the EU?

| 4. | Under what conditions does the Commission expect states outside the EU, including large countries such as the USA, Russia, China, India and Brazil, to take more seriously the EU's efforts to adopt a common position on international affairs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under what conditions does the Commission expect states outside the EU, including large countries such as the USA, Russia, China, India and Brazil, to take more seriously the EU's efforts to adopt a common position on international affairs?

| 5. | Does the Commission consider that, under such conditions, efforts towards the establishment of a common EU foreign policy and the securing of recognition by others of the EU as a major power in world politics are still realistic? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission consider that, under such conditions, efforts towards the establishment of a common EU foreign policy and the securing of recognition by others of the EU as a major power in world politics are still realistic?

Source: The Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 21 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view that the EU can only make progress when it takes united positions and defends them consistently in its dealings with its partners in the world. This conviction was already at the basis of the Commission's various contributions to the European Convention, and in particular its Communication ‘A project for the European Union’ of 22 May 2002 (2). In its opinion, the Community method certainly is the best way to propose, shape and finally make united decisions, and to represent them in international fora. This is already the case in the trade field where the Commission's role as spokesman for the Member States has greatly reinforced the EU as a negotiating partner — even when major trading partners seek to play off the Commission against the Member States.

However, even outside the sole competence of the Community the EU has adopted clear and consistent positions on a number of important matters, including the question of the ICC and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia. As of today, the EU has not modified its position on any of these issues. It will speak even more authoritatively on these matters when enlargement has taken place.

Inevitably, the military strength of some Member States is a major factor in international affairs. So is the role of those Member States who are permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and of the group of eight most industrialised countries (G8). But these Member States are also among those who are most ready to construct, for the first time, a European Security and Defence Policy. All Members States share the view that the ongoing work in this field, and on security matters generally, is central if the EU as such is to play a role in world affairs, to reinforce the rule of law on an international level, and to play its full role in conflict prevention and crisis management.

The Commission is encouraged that the European Convention has included in the draft Constitution a variety of elements that will enhance the Union's capacities. Streamlined decision-making procedures, a more powerful role for the Parliament, the appointment of a double-hatted ‘Foreign Ministers’/Vice-President of the Commission in charge of external relations and the creation of a Union legal personality arena. It will also help improve internal coordination. The Commission hopes that the Constitution will be adopted and enter into force as soon as possible.

As with trade, competition and the implementation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and the introduction of the Euro this will have a strong effect on the EU's visibility and its ability to act as a worldwide player. Internally, the fact that the Foreign Minister will chair the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs will make coordination easier to organise. This said, the Constitution will not constitute a panacea. In legal terms it still leaves room for Member States to follow a differentiated approach on Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) matters, as does Common Position 03/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the ICC. Much will therefore depend on the ability of the Foreign Minister and the willingness of Member States to implement not only the letter but also the spirit of the draft Constitution, and in particular Article III-206 (1):

| | Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination. |
| --- | --- |

Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination.

A single ‘Minister’ who is able to coordinate both the input into CFSP of Community external action and the contributions of Member States, supported by a single Joint External Action Service will contribute to the capacity of the Union, its Member States and its institutions to formulate and implement solid and united foreign policy positions more coherently and consistently.

---

(1)  See page 744.

(2)  COM(2002) 247 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/842 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/842

---

(2004/C 84 E/0935)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC — competence of Member States to define occupational retirement provision

In my opinion the above Directive is unclear with regard to the definition of benefits and the issue of biometric risk coverage.

Under Article 9(2) of Directive 2003/41/EC (1), Member States may provide that institutions can cover biometric risks and offer the option of repayment of contributions if employers and employees, or their respective representatives, so agree.

Article 20 of the same Directive (cross-border activities) states that institutions offering services in a host Member State must comply with its labour and social law requirements.

If the labour and social law requirements in a Member State currently provide for payment of lifelong pensions and biometrie risk coverage by institutions for occupational retirement provision, does this mean that the same must apply to all institutions offering services in this (host) Member State, i.e. also institutions from other home Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Article 9.2 of Directive 2003/41/EC (2) provides that: in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension benefits offered by the social-security regimes, Member States may provide that the option of longevity and disability cover, provision for surviving dependants and a guarantee of repayment of contributions as additional benefits be offered to members, if employers and employees, or their respective representatives so agree.

In the case where a Member State would require this option to be offered in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension benefits offered by the social-security regimes, an institution for occupational retirement provision may provide services in that Member State in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2003/41/EC, provided it respects this provision.

---

(1)  OJ L 235, 23.9.2003, p. 10.

(2)  Directive 2003/41/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/843 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/843

---

(2004/C 84 E/0936)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Complaints about the infringement of the property rights of building cooperatives in Greece

The right to property is guaranteed under Community law. However, according to repeated complaints by many Greek building cooperatives and the Panhelienic Union of Building Cooperatives (representing 500 000 members) the Greek authorities are continuing to obstruct the development of the property of these cooperatives, despite the fact that they are officially recognised by the Greek State and that the Greek courts have repeatedly ruled in their favour.

The machinations of Mrs Papandreou, the Minister for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, have been the subject of particularly vigorous protests (petitions have even been submitted to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions on this subject): she even drew up a presidential decree in February 2003 which essentially ties down the property of many officially recognised building cooperatives, for instance, the Association of Bank of Greece Employees with 3 500 members, the healthcare cooperative ‘Health’ with 4 050 members, etc. These cooperatives complain that, although their property is clearly outside woodland and the surrounding plots have been — legally or otherwise — subjected to very intensive development (as evidenced by aerial photographs in the possession of the Greek State), the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works is unjustifiably obstructing the development of their property in a way which — according to their complaints — is selective and is targeting them only.

It should be pointed out that these cooperatives have been officially recognised by the State for almost 40 years and that many of their members have already died having paid enormous amounts in contributions for years, but because of the obstructionism of the Greek authorities none of the members of these cooperatives have yet acquired the share of land to which they are entitled.

How can the thousands of citizens concerned be protected from these machinations of the Greek authorities? How can the Commission intervene effectively without delay so as to make the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works and the Greek authorities aware that they are harassing thousands of Greeks unfairly and without any justification? What sanctions can be imposed on a Member State which continuously obstructs the development of the officially recognised, legitimate property of thousands of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission would note that the obstacles to the exercise of property rights to which the Honourable Member refers and for which the Greek authorities are responsible have no apparent link with Community law. Thus, the Commission is not empowered to take action in this case. It would be otherwise only if these measures were an obstacle to residence in Greece by Union citizens. However, the Commission does not have any evidence that this is the case.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/844 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/844

---

(2004/C 84 E/0937)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Invasion of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

According to information obtained from the Commission, it would appear that at the 10/12 December 2003 Geneva World Summit on the Information Society, badges fitted with radio-frequency microchips (RFID technology) were used in order to control access to certain restricted areas.

In its reply to question P-4002/03 (1) the Commission (in the person of Mr Liikanen, Commissioner) states that it will undertake ‘to obtain further information in order to ascertain whether (and, if so, how) RFID-based applications were used in connection with personal data transferred from the European Union, with a view to assessing the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the data were processed.’

Has the Commission pursued its investigations and, if so, what further information has it obtained concerning the use of RFID technology by the organisers of the WSIS and the Swiss Government?

Has the Commission launched a study into the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the WSIS organisers processed the data?

What information does the Commission hold concerning the transfer to third countries of the data gathered in the course of the WSIS, with particular reference to the fact that the second stage of the WSIS will be held in Tunisia in November 2005?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

As announced in the response given to the Honourable Member's written question P-4002/03 on the same subject, the Commission has enquired informally with the Swiss authorities regarding the use of RFID-based technology at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).

The Commission was informed that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as the supporting United Nations (UN) agency for the WSIS was responsible for the organisation of security measures at the Summit.

The Commission has therefore sent a letter on 17 March 2004 to the Secretary-General of the ITU seeking further information on whether and how RFID-based applications were used in relation to personal data transferred from the EU, in order to assess the legality of the processing under EU law, and has also asked for an appreciation of such measures under Swiss law.

No reply has been received to date.

---

(1)  See page 129.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/845 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/845

---

(2004/C 84 E/0938)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0693/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR), Ieke van den Burg (PSE) and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Proposal COM(2003)657 and Directive 86/378/EEC

Commission proposal for a Council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services (COM(2003) 657) refers to the use of sex-based actuarial factors. As the Commission rightly points out in the explanatory memorandum and in recital 13 of the proposal, the use of sex-based actuarial factors is widespread in the provision of insurance services, even when such differences do not necessarily reflect objective differences. It is, therefore, appropriate to prohibit the use of these factors (see Article 4 of the proposal). We wholeheartedly applaud this and will support the Commission on this proposal.

At the same time, we would like to remind the Commission that, in the fourth Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 86/378/EEC (1) of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes), the use of actuarial calculation factors which differ according to sex may be maintained, pursuant to Article 6(1)(h).

This situation can cause confusion when it comes to deciding whether supplementary pension rules come under the second or third pillar, and thus whether they must be treated under Directive 86/378/EEC or under the new directive.

On the assumption that the above-mentioned Commission proposal will soon be approved by Parliament and the Council, we ask the Commission the following question: Is the Commission prepared to propose to Parliament and the Council a revised version of Directive 86/378/EEC, so that the use of sex-based actuarial factors may be forbidden also in the business and sectoral rules on social security?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission proposal for a Council directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services prohibits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in insurance services and private (third pillar) pension schemes. This reflects the Commission's view that the use of sex-based actuarial factors in insurance services and third pillar pension schemes is not compatible with the principle of equal treatment, and should be prohibited.

Council Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (2)) permits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in occupational (second pillar) pension schemes. Accordingly, once the Directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty is adopted, there will be different regimes as regards the use of sex-based actuarial factors in second and third pillar pension schemes.

The Commission does not consider that the application of different regimes for second and third pillar pensions would cause confusion. The case law of the Court of Justice has laid down clear criteria in the context of Article 141 of the EC Treaty which determine whether a pension scheme falls under the second pillar. The essential question the Court of Justice has asked is whether the pension is paid to the worker by reason of the employment relationship between the worker and her former employer (for example, see C-7/93 Beune).

The Commission is approaching use of sex-based actuarial factors in second and third pillar pension schemes on a step-by-step basis. The question of the use of sex-based actuarial factors in second pillar pension schemes was considered by the Commission, Parliament and Council in 1986 in the context of Directive 86/378/EEC, and again in 1996 in the context of Directive 96/97/EC. On each occasion, the outcome has been that the use of such factors should continue to be permitted. At present, the Commission is continuing with the discussions in the Council in relation to third pillar pensions covered by its proposal based on Article 13 EC. Therefore, the Commission does not consider it would be appropriate to propose a revised version of Directive 86/378/EEC addressing second pillar pensions at this stage while those discussions in relation to third pillar pensions are continuing.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1986, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/846 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/846

---

(2004/C 84 E/0939)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0694/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Auditing the Commission's external activity

Point 61 of EP report A5-0040/2004 calls on the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to make an assessment of the legality and regularity of contracts made and subsidies granted by these [sic] services.

Can the Commission confirm whether funding carried out by the EDF is included in the contracts which are going to be audited by the IAS under this point?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Internal Audit Service (IAS) is currently finalising its audit of the Europe Aid and Co-operation Office (AIDCO) Directorate-General in line with the objectives of the Reform White Paper.

One of the objectives of the audit was the examination of the AIDCO financial circuits for commitments and payments for European Development Funds (EDF) resources, made after the entry into force of the new 9th EDF Financial Regulation and within the effective devolution framework. The non-devolved delegations were not specifically addressed and the parameters were also set so as to avoid duplication with the ongoing separate but parallel evaluation of the devolution process.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/846 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/846

---

(2004/C 84 E/0940)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   State aid to credit unions

Can the Commission confirm what are the State aid regulations for small credit unions serving identified local areas?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

State aid to credit unions serving identified local areas is subject to the general State Aid regulatory framework and case law, if the conditions set out in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled. As the features of credit unions differ in terms of their membership, activities, products, scale and purpose, it is important to assess the schemes on a case by case basis.

Aid granted to credit unions would have to be examined under the relevant State aid rules, for example Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) or the Commission Guidelines on national regional aid. It should also be reminded that, according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1), financial support granted to an undertaking up to an amount of EUR 100 000 over a period of three years is not considered to be state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

Where it is found that Credit Unions are deemed to provide a service of general economic interest and receive State aid for the compensation of the net extra costs of such services, an assessment for compatibility would be carried out to assess whether the derogation provided for under Article 86(2) may be applied.

The above is intended to provide an overview of the process that may be applied to credit unions in so far as an examination for State Aid is concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/847 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/847

---

(2004/C 84 E/0941)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Tinned food and olive oil

The Community's Mediterranean countries are the world's largest olive oil producers. This sensitive product, one of the Mediterranean area's major agricultural crops, is used for a considerable range of preserved, semi-preserved and prepared fish and seafood, either as the liquid in which these products are preserved, or as an ingredient, since it has significant nutritional qualities, and on foreign markets, has become a synonym for quality and healthy eating.

The production costs faced by Community businesses are much higher than those of their third country competitors. If the elimination of reimbursements for the production of olive oil for preserving purposes persists, will the EU reduce or suspend custom duties on imported olive oil, so that Community businesses can continue to compete with their third country counterparts on an equal footing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Community accounts for 80 % of world olive oil production and intra-Community trade in olive oil makes up the bulk of the world olive oil trade. The international reference prices for olive oil are determined in the Community. Thus Community manufacturers of food products using olive oil have the advantage of operating where the biggest supply of olive oil in the world is to be found. In these circumstances reducing customs duty on olive oil to be used by food manufacturers would be unjustified when the market is operating in its normal way.

In our proposal for a new common market organisation for olive oil and table olives we include provisions whereby, in the exceptional event of extremely high prices in the Community, it would be possible, in order to allow the market to be adequately supplied, for customs duties to be suspended fully or in part or a reduced rate import quota opened. Given the proportion of the world total that Community production accounts for, the need to use these provisions would rarely occur.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/848 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/848

---

(2004/C 84 E/0942)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Preserves and olive oil

The Community's Mediterranean countries are the world's largest olive oil producers. This sensitive product, one of the Mediterranean area's major agricultural crops, is used for a considerable range of preserved, semi-preserved and prepared fish and seafood, either as the liquid in which these products are preserved, or as an ingredient, since it has significant nutritional qualities, and on foreign markets, has become a synonym for quality and healthy eating.

| 1. | The elimination of reimbursements for olive oil used in producing preserves will considerably increase production costs for preserved, semi-preserved and other prepared fish and seafood. Has the Commission actually quantified the prejudice and losses which this kind of measure will cause? If so, what are the figures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The elimination of reimbursements for olive oil used in producing preserves will considerably increase production costs for preserved, semi-preserved and other prepared fish and seafood. Has the Commission actually quantified the prejudice and losses which this kind of measure will cause? If so, what are the figures?

| 2. | What mechanisms has the Commission provided for in order to ensure that the possible elimination of these reimbursements does not mean a loss of competitiveness, production, jobs and immediate market share on the part of the Community preserves industry? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What mechanisms has the Commission provided for in order to ensure that the possible elimination of these reimbursements does not mean a loss of competitiveness, production, jobs and immediate market share on the part of the Community preserves industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member himself indicates, foods using olive oil are increasingly valued by consumers for their nutritional and organoleptic properties and have now become a symbol of quality and healthy eating. The promotional campaigns mounted by the Community for many years have undoubtedly boosted this positive perception of olive oil.

Under present circumstances, with foods using olive oil in great demand by an increasing number of consumers ready to pay a higher price for them, granting a refund is no longer justified. The image of these products is now such that we consider that withdrawal of the aid will result in no reduction of sales and hence have no impact on Community manufacturers.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/848 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/848

---

(2004/C 84 E/0943)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0701/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Use of the appellations ‘vintage’ and ‘tawny’ by third countries

The EU Wine Management Committee decided on 10 February 2004 to authorise the use of specific traditional appellations of wines produced at Community level by third countries such as South Africa or Australia, whenever the wine produced met a certain series of restricted conditions in accordance to those obtaining in the Member States. This decision was taken against the votes of the producer countries like Portugal, and according to the Portuguese press, was adopted the Commission on 23 February.

The new rules are going to affect the appellations ‘tawny’, ‘ruby’, ‘vintage’, ‘late bottle’ for port wine, and the appellations ‘escuro’ (dark), ‘fino’ (fine), ‘frasqueira’ (rack) ‘reserva velha’ (aged reserve) and ‘solera’ which are linked with Madeira wine, over and above affecting other appellations such as ‘vinho generoso’ (regional wine) and ‘vinho doce natural’ (high quality full-bodied high alcohol content and rich in esters) and ‘vinho doce natural’ (naturally sweet wine), which covers not only port and Madeira wines, but Setúbal and Carcavelos muscat.

This proposal, which was presented in 2002, may facilitate WTO negotiations and intellectual property agreements, but it will provoke increased unfair competition with Community-produced wines, with all the socio-economic consequences arising therefrom; it will undermine appellations and brands consolidated over the years, and will cause confusion amongst consumers.

| 1. | Has the Commission made any assessment of the socio-economic impact of these measures on the producer countries? What does it believe the impact of this proposal will be for Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission made any assessment of the socio-economic impact of these measures on the producer countries? What does it believe the impact of this proposal will be for Portugal?

| 2. | Does it not consider that it is essential to define Community appellations, within the sphere of intellectual property agreements and of trade agreements with third countries? Why is it therefore coming forward with a proposal rejected by the producer countries, which will jeopardise the quality and the added value of these appellations? How does it intend to control these imports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it not consider that it is essential to define Community appellations, within the sphere of intellectual property agreements and of trade agreements with third countries? Why is it therefore coming forward with a proposal rejected by the producer countries, which will jeopardise the quality and the added value of these appellations? How does it intend to control these imports?

| 3. | Have compensation mechanisms, at the very least, been provided for the producers affected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Have compensation mechanisms, at the very least, been provided for the producers affected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

We adopted new rules on the description, designation and protection of certain wine sector products in order to avert the possibility of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel. This would have been a serious threat to European wine labelling policy.

Following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the World Trade Organisation, several third countries sent their observations and expressed reservations to the WTO. Two consultations were held in Geneva. Exclusive protection of certain traditional terms (List B) was regarded by the third countries as a new intellectual property right of the Union covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (additional to that for geographical indications). A WTO panel might well have jeopardised EU policy on protection of geographical indications and was to be avoided.

In the light of the third country observations we decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation. We adopted them following a vote in the Management Committee for Wine in accordance with the procedures set in Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2) and then notified them to the WTO.

Primarily the changes give third countries the possibility of using certain traditional terms subjject to compliance with the same rules as those for Member States. Account also had to be taken of the fact that several third countries do not have a centralised regulatory system for the wine sector. The European legislative system requirements were therefore amended and the concept of ‘regulation’ replaced by that of ‘applicable rules’. These rules include those issued by representative trade organisations and these organisations were themselves defined.

It is important to remenber that unlike Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 makes no reference to two types of traditional term but only to the possibility open to the Commission of adopting rules on traditional terms that accord with the provisions in force in the Member States.

The new requirements for third countries' use of Community traditional terms are the equivalent of the the requirements already in force for the traditional terms of List A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

They include (see Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Article 37(l)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002) the following:

| — | the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term; |
| --- | --- |

—

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term;

| — | the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

—

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| — | if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| — | other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled. |
| --- | --- |

—

other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled.

In the case of the Portuguese traditional terms the Honourable Member mentions a number of requirements must therefore be met if they are to be used in the Community by third countries. Thus for a term such as Ruby, Tawny, Vintage (whether or not followed by Late Bottle), Canteiro or Frasqueira to be used on a liqueur wine other than Port or Madeira in the first place either English or Portuguese as appropriate must be the official language of the third country and the term must have been used for at least 10 years, or English or Portuguese must be a second language recognised in the country's legislation and in that case the term must have been used for at least 25 years. Secondly, the term must be specific and distinctive and not such as to mislead the consumer when the wine is marketed in Europe. There must also be some tradition behind use of the term in the third country.

It should be noted that this category of traditional term (List B) was attacked by the third countries on the grounds that the Community had created a new industrial property right (additional to geographical indications) debarring them from using the terms in question for their wines on the Community market (e.g. Fino, Claret, Vintage, etc.) although some of these terms had long been in use elsewhere in the world.

The requirements for use of the traditional terms Reserva velha, Solera, Vinho regional, Vinho generoso and Vinho doce natural by third countries remain unchanged, since they were already included in List A to Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/850 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/850

---

(2004/C 84 E/0944)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0705/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Creation of an observatory to study the phenomenon of organised mafia-type crime and similar forms of criminality in the EU

Increased economic and financial flows and the globalisation of the economy have given rise to the appearance and consolidation of transnational organised crime in Europe, which grows and proliferates through structures and strategies whose territorial boundaries no longer correspond to the confines of an individual state.

The reported presence in the EU of a veritable crime multinational entails the management of vast activities, including the trafficking of human organs and tissues, illegal immigration and the sexual exploitation of women and children, drug trafficking, illegal arms trading, trading waste (including radioactive waste) and trafficking animals and works of art.

Recent high-level police investigations have confirmed the existence of operative links between the mafia in Europe in its various forms, international terrorism and South American paramilitary organisations.

The ‘European crime prevention network’ produces limited operative evidence and excludes the participation of MEPs.

In view of the above, does not the Commission consider it vital to set up, as a matter of urgency, an observatory, with a representative from the European Parliament, to carry out a far-reaching and coherent study of the phenomenon of organised mafia-type crime and similar forms of criminality in European countries by means of an in-depth investigation of the causes and the devastating effects of such crime in social and economic terms, and to propose suitable solutions to reduce existing discrepancies in penalties between the different legal systems of individual Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In today's world, the scope, nature and methods of organised crime change rapidly and constitute a serious threat to the security of citizens and society.

The prevention of organised crime can greatly benefit from the reinforcement of actions, an enhanced exchange of practices, the setting of common priorities, and the co-ordination of national approaches at European level, i.e. through the gathering, analysis and exchange of information and expertise. Furthermore, value can be added to existing national efforts by developing at European level common methods and infrastructures for the gathering, analysis and use of criminal intelligence and the elaboration of common profiling methods.

Recent progress at European level in the field of law enforcement and judicial co-operation include in particular the adoption of the Framework Decision (1) on the European arrest warrant and the Framework Decision (2) on enforcement in the Union of decisions concerning the freezing of assets.

The establishment of Eurojust which has been operational in The Hague since December 2002 is an important part of ensuring proper coordination between the national prosecuting authorities, as regards practical policing and judicial co-operation. On the basis of an initiative by several Member States, agreement was also reached in principle on the establishment of joint investigative teams, which would bring the entry into force of the 2000 Mutual Legal Assistance Convention.

Furthermore, the role of Europol has also been reinforced to extend its remit to all the serious forms of international crime mentioned in the Annex to the Europol Convention. Europol publishes once a year the EU Organized Crime Report, based on contributions from the Member States. The primary aim of the report is to obtain and disseminate information about organized crime in the EU, thereby providing an effective basis for governments and parliaments to formulate coherent policies at national and EU levels. This process also supports law enforcement decision-makers in setting priorities and allocating resources as appropriate.

As far as the detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal activities is concerned, cooperation at Union level provides wider possibilities for effectively addressing organized crime, and increases the viability of national law enforcement actions. This is supported by the gathering, sharing and exchanging of information and intelligence through information networks, operational cooperation, the setting up of common training programmes and other schemes for knowledge sharing. It is further supported through cooperation in the field of scientific police information and forensic science, and in the coordination of efforts undertaken in this context. Operational cooperation can receive strong impetus from supporting the co-operation and coordination of actions of enforcement authorities, including on the basis of public-private partnerships.

Evaluation and monitoring of measures to fight organised financial crime will take on growing importance for the Commission. To this end, the Commission will work towards establishing working methods as well as targeting areas and objectives proposed in close co-operation with Member States and other relevant bodies such as Europol, Eurostat and Member States' statistical agencies, relevant sectors of the academic community, and the private sector, as appropriate.

The Commission intends to create European expert groups on statistics and criminal research and set up an EU network of national correspondents on crime statistics. Two ad-hoc experts' meetings, organized by the Commission under the Forum on the Prevention of Organised Crime, have already taken place with a view to preparing this initiative.

In this context, the Commission is also supporting the implementation of a set of economic risk assessments on sectoral organised crime, with a view to formulating a European methodology on economic risk analysis and to encourage the development of early warning systems, benchmarking exercises and the identification and exchange of good practices in reducing crime, victimisation and fear of crime.

Finally, the potential value added of dedicated observatories will also be assessed in this context.

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002.

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/852 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/852

---

(2004/C 84 E/0945)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/04

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Wine

It came as a surprise when, in February, the Commission adopted an amendment to the Regulation on wine labelling, allowing third countries to market wines using traditional EU nomenclature, such as crianza, reserva or gran reserva, against the wishes of the producer countries.

Furthermore, for years now the Commission has been conducting thorny negotiations, both bilaterally and through the WTO, with a view to preserving our traditional appellations. Only recently have various third countries lodged complaints with the WTO against Regulation (CE) 753/2002 (1) on the labelling of wine, since in practice, it does not authorise the use of the traditional Community terminology.

Why did the Commission not wait until the WTO returned its opinion before it made any amendment to the EU legislation, and thus not throw away the chance of defending our interests at WTO level?

What criteria does this change in the traditional EU stance on this issue obey?

What does the Commission estimate the losses to the sector at?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission was led to adopt new rules on the description, designation and protection of certain wine sector products in order to avert the possibility of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel, which would have represented a serious threat to the European policy on wine labelling.

As referred to in the written question, following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (2) to the World Trade Organisation several third countries sent their comments and expressed reservations to the WTO. Two consultations were held in Geneva on the matter. The exclusive protection of certain traditional terms (part B) was regarded by the third countries as a new intellectual property right on the part of the European Union under the TRIPS Agreement, in addition to that of geographical indications. A WTO panel along those lines could have jeopardised EU policy on the protection of geographical indications and was therefore to be avoided.

In the light of the comments made by third countries, the Commission decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation in question. Those changes mainly relate to the possibility for third countries to use certain traditional terms in compliance with the same rules as apply to Member States.

Account also had to be taken of the fact that several third countries do not have a centralised regulatory system for the wine sector. The European requirements on the legislative system were therefore amended and the ‘regulation’ principle was replaced by the ‘applicable rules’ principle. Such rules include those issued by representative professional organisations. A definition of ‘representativeness’ was also inserted.

It is also important to stress that Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (3) makes no reference to the two types of traditional names, unlike Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, but only to the possibility for the Commission to adopt standards on traditional indications in accordance with the provisions in force in the Member States.

The new conditions for third countries' use of Community traditional names are equivalent to the previous conditions of use under Annex III, part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

According to Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (4) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, those conditions include the following:

| (a) | the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications;

| (b) | the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| (c) | if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| (d) | other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication's specific nature and distinctive character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met.

In the specific case of the Spanish traditional terms ‘Reserva’, ‘Gran Reserva’ and ‘Crianza’ referred to in the written question to the Commission, the conditions governing their use in the Community by third countries remain unchanged, since those terms were already listed in Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 -OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/854 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/854

---

(2004/C 84 E/0946)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Increasing the Portuguese annual sugar quota

On a recent visit to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento agro-industrial, SA — in Coruche, Portugal, I learned that in 2002, the company succeeded in obtaining from Portuguese farmers all the raw material necessary to produce mainland Portugal's allocated quota of white sugar.

But the annual quota assigned to DAI, some 70 million tonnes of white beet sugar, accounts for a mere 23 % of the Portuguese market's needs. Currently, DAI has the capacity to produce over 100 000 tonnes of white sugar, and in the Alqueva dam area, suitable conditions exist for Portuguese farmers to produce more sugar beet.

What measures are being investigated, given the proposed review of the COM in sugar, and the need to raise mainland Portugal's quota to 100 000 tonnes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

In accordance with Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), refineries established in Portugal are guaranteed supply by preferential imports of raw cane sugar from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, comprising a quantity of almost 300 000 tonnes (t). That quantity, imported at an average price of almost EUR 500/tonne, corresponds to Portugal's sugar consumption.

That provision enables the refineries to continue operating on the basis of Portugal's traditional supply of sugar from certain African countries.

Although not previously a producer, since accession Portugal has also had a beet sugar production quota of some 70 000 tonnes. Despite relatively high production costs, cultivation has become established and gradually expanded such that from now on the quota will be attained.

Concurrently with the expansion of production, Portugal's sugar exports have increased from zero to their present figure of 90 000 tonnes.

Almost half that quantity is exported to third countries with Community refunds whose unit amount currently exceeds EUR 500/tonne. The refunds make it possible to reduce the price of surplus sugar on the Portuguese market to the world price level of less than EUR 200/tonne. The balance of surplus sugar is sent to other Community countries, mainly Spain.

The Portuguese market's specific supply characteristics are such that any increase in the beet sugar production quota would result in the need to increase Community sugar exports with refunds, which cannot be justified in budgetary terms.

---

(1)  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/855 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/855

---

(2004/C 84 E/0947)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0713/04

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Management of the risk assessment process on zinc

In 2002 I raised concerns about the management of the risk assessment of zinc and its possible premature closing-off without taking into account all relevant and new research. Carried out under the existing chemicals legislation, this first risk assessment of a bio-essential metal is a precedent for future risk assessments. It is also becoming a case study of mismanagement of a process which should be based on best-available science.

My concerns have recently been renewed by the release of the final draft risk assessment report on zinc, which simply misinterprets or ignores the outcome of 18 months of research funded by industry and what is considered to be the best available science. The preparation of this report also raises fundamental questions of over-conservatism, fairness and transparency regarding the very selective approach to available science that has been used to justify and maintain initial draft conclusions drawn two years ago.

In a parallel development, a recent CSTEE opinion on complaint 1999/5056/NL criticises a similar risk assessment for not having used a transparent method of selecting data and for not having provided sufficient scientific justification to show the presence of environmental risks.

In this context, can the Commission explain:

| 1. | What steps have been taken or are being considered to ensure that the issues raised in the CSTEE opinion are avoided in the risk assessment for zinc, for which the same rapporteur has responsibility? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps have been taken or are being considered to ensure that the issues raised in the CSTEE opinion are avoided in the risk assessment for zinc, for which the same rapporteur has responsibility?

| 2. | How will the Commission ensure that research and scientific developments are not systematically ignored in an attempt by a rapporteur to validate its initial conclusions and that the risk assessment for zinc is brought to a level of quality sufficient for decisions on risk to be taken? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How will the Commission ensure that research and scientific developments are not systematically ignored in an attempt by a rapporteur to validate its initial conclusions and that the risk assessment for zinc is brought to a level of quality sufficient for decisions on risk to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The drafting of the risk assessment report on zinc has now been in process for almost 10 years. It is a good example of very detailed discussions between all stakeholders in the technical meetings. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion that the assessment of a chemical substance like zinc has to be sound by including all relevant research.

The Honourable Member refers to the comments of the CSTEE about the lack of clarity in the data selection process in the assessment of the use of copper containing anti-foulings and the lack of sufficient scientific information. In the case of zinc, a large amount of data has been presented in an extensive document, very detailed discussions took place in the Technical Meetings on risk assessments carried out under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (1) and Member States experts have reached consensus on the criteria for data selection and the way the data should be used.

The industry was given the opportunity and the time to carry out an additional research program, based on the expectation that additional scientific information would improve the quality of the report. Meanwhile, the results are available and give a better understanding of the behaviour of zinc in the environment, and will be incorporated in the draft risk assessment report by the rapporteur.

On 8 and 9 March 2004, the draft report was discussed again in a Technical Meeting with all stakeholders. The meeting was chaired by the European Chemical Bureau. An agreement was reached on the conclusions regarding the risks for the compartments ‘water’ and ‘soil’. Further discussion is still needed for the risk assessment for ‘agricultural soil’.

We expect that agreement can be reached on the open issues in the coming months. In line with the normal procedure for risk assessments carried out under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, the final report will subsequently be sent to the CSTEE for their opinion on the scientific basis of the conclusions. A summary of these conclusions will subsequently be published in the Official Journal of the European Union as a Commission recommendation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/856 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/856

---

(2004/C 84 E/0948)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0714/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Conversion of ENEL's ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia

ENEL's ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia is in the process of being converted into a coal-fired power plant that would be highly noxious and have a devastating impact on the environment (carbon dioxide — C02 — emissions an average of 40 % higher than for oil and 50 % higher than for methane, at higher costs). This flies in the face of the precautionary principle and of the opposition of the general public, as unanimously expressed in the referendum held by the municipalities of Civitavecchia and Tarquinia but nevertheless opposed and disregarded by ENEL and the Ministry for Productive Activities.

Already in the area, the incidence of tumours, respiratory diseases and all the illnesses linked to the presence of fine dusts is much higher than the average, being 50 times greater than the national and regional average. The district is already at a serious environmental risk and already has three power stations, two special refuse disposal sites and heavy traffic both at sea and on land. Despite the notification sent to Italy, there have been continued violations of Directive 96/62/EC (1) and Directive 1999/30/EC (2) in the field of air quality, and specifically of the requirement to provide daily information on PM10 concentrations.

The Civitavecchia combustion plant will also be a source of severe toxicity in terms of carbon dioxide, arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, chromium and nickel. Directive 2001/80/EC (3) on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants has also been infringed, since Italy has failed to transpose this into national law (a matter which the Commission has already referred to the EC Court of Justice).

With regard to this situation, what urgent measures will the Commission take to appropriately prevent damage being occasioned, in terms of health and the environment, by pollution from ENEL's Valdaliga Nord power station to the people of Civitavecchia and the neighbouring municipalities of Allumiere, Blera, Cerveteri, Ladispoli, Tarquinia and Tolfa, bearing in mind Italy's longstanding and repeated failures to comply with, and violations of, the principles laid down in the Treaty and the urgent need to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the environment, health and the local economy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The fact that the ENEL's ‘Valdaliga Nord’ power station at Civitavecchia is in the process of being converted into a coal-fired power plant is not in itself contrary to any provisions of Community environmental law.

Of course, as a combustion installation with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 Megawatt (MW), it will be subject to the requirements provided for by Council Directives 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and 2001/80/EC of the Parliament and of the Commission of 23 October 2001, on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (4). In particular, according to Article 8 of Directive 96/61/EC, competent authorities are obliged to ensure that permits granted to the new installations covered by this Directive include all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of Articles 3 and 10 in order to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole by means of protection of the air, water and land. In addition, according to Article 4 of Directive 2001/80/EC the competent authorities are obliged to ensure that licences granted for the construction or for the operation of the new installations covered by this Directive contain conditions relating to compliance with the emission limit values laid down in part Β of Annexes III to VII in respect of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust. In accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2001/80/EC, the same limit values shall apply where the operator of a combustion plant is envisaging a change within the meaning of Article 2(10) b and 12(2) of Directive 96/61/EC.

In the light of the information given by the Honourable Member, it appears that such permits and licences have not yet been issued. Therefore, no breach of Community law can be identified at present. The infringement procedure for failure to transpose Directive 2001/80/EC in the Italian legal system, mentioned by the Honourable Member, is a general one and it has no specific link with the situation in Civitavecchia.

Emissions from large combustion plants contribute to concentrations in ambient air of certain pollutants which are regulated by Community air quality legislation. As regards the Directives on air quality, in particular Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, the Commission started an infringement procedure against Italy for its failure to monitor PM10 concentrations in Civitavecchia. No other breach of the above-mentioned directives has been identified as regards the same area and no further breach can be identified on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member. However, if PM10 concentrations in that zone had exceeded limit values together with a margin of tolerance, the Italian authorities would be under the obligation to establish a plan or program within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, and to ensure compliance with the limit values laid down by Directive 1999/30/EC by 1 January 2005 at the latest. The Commission is closely monitoring compliance with the above obligations for all Member States, including Italy.

As regards air pollution from arsenic and mercury, the Commission is aware of the toxicity of these substances and, on 16 July 2003, it adopted a proposal for a Directive on concentrations of arsenic, cadium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (5).

---

(1)  OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55.

(2)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

(3)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(5)  COM(2003) 423 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/857 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/857

---

(2004/C 84 E/0949)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/04

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Training and development funds in the Netherlands as a contribution to the Lisbon strategy

The Netherlands is active, on the basis of the Lisbon strategy and Council opinion, in deploying initiatives jointly with the social partners to combat unemployment among lower-skilled workers. An important means of financing such activities is being created in the form of contributions by the social partners to training and development funds. These funds are private contributions financed from the margin arising out of wage negotiations. Where a sectoral collective bargain is struck, the relevant collective-bargaining provisions can be declared generally binding. In 2003, the Netherlands Supreme Court delivered a judgment confirming that a generally binding declaration adopted as part of a collective bargaining agreement did not amount to a form of state support (Case C01/117HR). A number of governments are reported to have written to the Commission about the policy of the Competition DG, which does in fact designate such training funds as public-sector support.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that committing resources from collectively financed training funds to job-creation schemes can contribute favourably to achieving the Lisbon objectives and improving employee qualifications? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that committing resources from collectively financed training funds to job-creation schemes can contribute favourably to achieving the Lisbon objectives and improving employee qualifications?

| 2. | Does the Commission also agree that a conflict exists between the commitment expected of the social partners under the Lisbon strategy and the Commission's attitude in designating the provision of such resources as public-sector funding? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission also agree that a conflict exists between the commitment expected of the social partners under the Lisbon strategy and the Commission's attitude in designating the provision of such resources as public-sector funding?

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that different governments have made representations to it in this connection? When will the Commission answer them, and what will the main thrust of its answer be? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that different governments have made representations to it in this connection? When will the Commission answer them, and what will the main thrust of its answer be?

| 4. | Is the Commission prepared to improve policy coordination by its directorates-general and to cooperate in finding a quick solution to the impasse so as to enable training and development funds to be fully committed in support of the Lisbon strategy? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission prepared to improve policy coordination by its directorates-general and to cooperate in finding a quick solution to the impasse so as to enable training and development funds to be fully committed in support of the Lisbon strategy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | Training funds undoubtedly make a positive contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy. They can bring about a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and contribute to a policy of life-long training. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Training funds undoubtedly make a positive contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy. They can bring about a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and contribute to a policy of life-long training.

| 2. | As part of its examination of whether state aid schemes are compatible, the Commission takes into consideration the objectives of other Union policies, including those of employment policy, and incorporates them into its analysis.
  First of all it has to determine on the basis of objective criteria whether the funding in question constitutes state aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. If a state scheme distorts free competition and affects intra-Community trade by conferring an advantage on one or more enterprises it constitutes state aid. As part of its examination of whether the aid is compatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission then takes account of the scheme's effects, which naturally include social effects, on other Union policies. The Lisbon strategy could only be considered incompatible with policy on state aid if the measures taken to implement it were classified as state aid that is incompatible with the EC Treaty.
  To date no decision has been taken on the status of training funds. Although in certain circumstances funds may cause distortion of competition, training funds do not necessarily do so. Taking account of those funds' undoubtedly beneficial effects and their contribution to attaining the Lisbon strategy objectives, the Commission sees no reason to consider the training funds of which it is currently aware to have a significant impact on competition and intra-Community trade. It considers that the public authorities are justified in giving firms incentives to improve employment levels and workforce skills. Consequently, the objectives of the Lisbon strategy and those of state aid policy are certainly not incompatible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As part of its examination of whether state aid schemes are compatible, the Commission takes into consideration the objectives of other Union policies, including those of employment policy, and incorporates them into its analysis.

First of all it has to determine on the basis of objective criteria whether the funding in question constitutes state aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. If a state scheme distorts free competition and affects intra-Community trade by conferring an advantage on one or more enterprises it constitutes state aid. As part of its examination of whether the aid is compatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission then takes account of the scheme's effects, which naturally include social effects, on other Union policies. The Lisbon strategy could only be considered incompatible with policy on state aid if the measures taken to implement it were classified as state aid that is incompatible with the EC Treaty.

To date no decision has been taken on the status of training funds. Although in certain circumstances funds may cause distortion of competition, training funds do not necessarily do so. Taking account of those funds' undoubtedly beneficial effects and their contribution to attaining the Lisbon strategy objectives, the Commission sees no reason to consider the training funds of which it is currently aware to have a significant impact on competition and intra-Community trade. It considers that the public authorities are justified in giving firms incentives to improve employment levels and workforce skills. Consequently, the objectives of the Lisbon strategy and those of state aid policy are certainly not incompatible.

| 3. | So far, only two Member States have been in touch with the Commission concerning training funds. The Commission is currently examining those cases in relation to the various policies of the Union. At the present moment, it has not adopted a final position on the substance of those decisions. In any event, it will undoubtedly take account of the favourable social effect of the schemes. Moreover, it is currently developing an economic approach that allows a flexible appraisal of aid schemes that are unlikely to have a significant effect on competition and intra-Community trade. |
| --- | --- |

3.

So far, only two Member States have been in touch with the Commission concerning training funds. The Commission is currently examining those cases in relation to the various policies of the Union. At the present moment, it has not adopted a final position on the substance of those decisions. In any event, it will undoubtedly take account of the favourable social effect of the schemes. Moreover, it is currently developing an economic approach that allows a flexible appraisal of aid schemes that are unlikely to have a significant effect on competition and intra-Community trade.

| 4. | Examination of all aspects of the training fund cases is fully coordinated within the Commission. The development of the abovementioned economic approach should allow it to appraise the effects of those funds and the favourable contribution they can make to improving conditions of employment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Examination of all aspects of the training fund cases is fully coordinated within the Commission. The development of the abovementioned economic approach should allow it to appraise the effects of those funds and the favourable contribution they can make to improving conditions of employment.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/859 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/859

---

(2004/C 84 E/0950)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Professional recognition for the police

The role of the police, which is carried out in each Member State by forces subordinate to national governments to ensure the application of national criminal law, is growing in importance at European level too in the face of a growing need to combat cross-border criminal phenomena such as drugs, terrorism, paedophilia and illegal immigration. At the Tampere European Council, the EU declared its intention to create an area of freedom, security and justice, committing itself to intensifying cooperation between police and judicial bodies charged with preventing and combating crime and helping the victims of criminal activities, and set up a framework programme (AGIS) to support and promote these bodies (Decision 2002/630/JHA (1)).

However, it should be emphasised that, despite the importance of their social activities, law enforcement officials are not given adequate professional recognition and appropriate protection in a number of areas: pay does not appropriately reflect the duties that must be carried out; there have at times been anomalies, some serious, in the career progression procedure; the pension contribution threshold is, in many countries, the same as that set for other categories less exposed to risk and physical stress; trade union rights are often not fairly protected and it is not possible everywhere to join or form a trade union. This occurs, albeit with some variations, in most of the 15 EU Member States and, in particular, in Italy, despite the praiseworthy initiatives of the Government aimed at improving the situation.

The police is an administrative body of the State, meaning that the issue set out above is a matter above all for the national law of Member States; however, the EU has demonstrated a notable sensitivity, as indicated above, towards the role of the police. Moreover, union relations and recognition of workers rights form an integral part of individual Community equal opportunities policies.

| 1. | In view of the above, can the Commission state whether there exist Europe-wide studies, examples of good practice and codes of conduct on the treatment, professionally, economically and in terms of trade unions, of police employees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether there exist Europe-wide studies, examples of good practice and codes of conduct on the treatment, professionally, economically and in terms of trade unions, of police employees?

| 2. | Can the AGIS programme aim to provide an exchange of experience and information on aspects of employment law in this area, as well as on strictly police activities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the AGIS programme aim to provide an exchange of experience and information on aspects of employment law in this area, as well as on strictly police activities?

| 3. | Are the EU's support measures in this area already complete? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the EU's support measures in this area already complete?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The AGIS programme adopted by the Council on 22 July 2002 (2) extends the activities of former programmes under Title VI of the EU Treaty (Grotius, Oisin, Stop, Falcone and Hippocrate). It is operated by the Commission (Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs).

AGIS supports police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, prevention and measures to combat crime in all its forms. It co-finances training, research and study initiatives, professional exchange programmes, result sharing, conferences and seminars.

However, AGIS does not deal with the professional, economic and trade-union status of police employees and nor does it cover aspects of employment law in that area.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/860 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/860

---

(2004/C 84 E/0951)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0731/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Social and family assistance for the police

The role of the police, which is carried out in each Member State by forces subordinate to national governments to ensure the application of national criminal law, is growing in importance at European level, too, in the face of a growing need to combat cross-border criminal phenomena such as drugs, terrorism, paedophilia and illegal immigration. At the Tampere European Council, the EU declared its intention to create an area of freedom, security and justice, committing itself to intensifying cooperation between police and judicial bodies charged with preventing and combating crime and helping the victims of criminal activities, and set up a framework programme (AGIS) to support and promote these bodies (Decision 2002/630/JHA (1)).

However, it should be emphasised that, despite the importance of their social activities, law enforcement officials are not given adequate professional recognition and find themselves having to cope with difficulties linked to the specific nature of their role. Specifically, the job entails long working hours, night shifts, high-risk activities, being on call at all times and numerous other inconveniences that are difficult to accommodate with family life. At the same time, particularly with regard to family and equal opportunities law, support measures and the protection available to officers seem not to be sufficient. To meet the particular demands faced by law enforcement officials and their families, above all those faced by women enlisted in the police, full maternity and paternity assistance needs to be provided, in the form of tax incentives, favourable childcare arrangements and similar support structures, concessions when buying a house, making it easier to manage working hours, etc.

The police is an administrative body of the State, meaning that the issue set out above is a matter above all for the national law of Member States; however, the EU has demonstrated a notable sensitivity, as indicated above, towards the role of the police, and support measures for employees' families form an integral part of individual Community equal opportunities policies.

| 1. | In view of the above, can the Commission state whether there exist Europe-wide studies, examples of good practice and codes of conduct on family support policies for police employees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether there exist Europe-wide studies, examples of good practice and codes of conduct on family support policies for police employees?

| 2. | Can the AGIS programme aim also to provide an exchange of experience and information on these policies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the AGIS programme aim also to provide an exchange of experience and information on these policies?

| 3. | Are the EU's support measures in this area already complete? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the EU's support measures in this area already complete?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The AGIS programme (2003-2007), adopted by the Council on 22 July 2002 (2), carries on from earlier programmes set up under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (Grotius, Oisin, Stop, Falcone and Hippokrates). It is managed by the Commission (Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs).

AGIS supports projects aimed at improving police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and cooperation in preventing and fighting all forms of crime. It co-finances training, exchange and placement schemes, studies and research, the dissemination of results, conferences and seminars.

The programme is not, however, concerned with family and social support measures for law-enforcement officials.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/861 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/861

---

(2004/C 84 E/0952)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Dam-building on the international stretch of the river Minho

The Portuguese Water Institute has been asked to consider a proposal for three hydroelectric dams to be built on the international stretch of the river Minho by Unión Fenosa (a Spanish conglomerate operating in the electricity sector).

These proposals have arisen in the wake of an earlier case, in 1998, in which the idea of building the Sela dam on the same river was abandoned because it would not have been feasible, on account of the highly damaging environmental impact.

The present proposals could likewise have serious adverse environmental effects, as environmentalists, local councillors, fishermen, and wine-growers fear.

The Commission:

| 1. | Does it know about Unión Fenosa's plan to build three hydroelectric dams on the river Minho, which forms a natural border between Portugal and Spain? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it know about Unión Fenosa's plan to build three hydroelectric dams on the river Minho, which forms a natural border between Portugal and Spain?

| 2. | How does it view the environmental impact of the proposals and what measures will it take to deal with the concern of the Portuguese public, organisations, and institutions in the region? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does it view the environmental impact of the proposals and what measures will it take to deal with the concern of the Portuguese public, organisations, and institutions in the region?

| 3. | Will any Community funding be granted for the project? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will any Community funding be granted for the project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the proposals to build dams on the river Minho by the Unión Fenosa.

Under Community law, proposals to construct dams require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment. If the storage capacity of a dam will exceed 10 million cubic metres, an EIA is mandatory (under Annex I of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)); in other cases (which come under Annex II of the same Directive), the competent authority in the Member State must screen the proposal in order to determine whether significant effects are likely. The EIA involves the provision of information on the proposed project and its likely effects, as weil as consultation with environmental authorities and the public and, if there are likely to be transboundary effects, with any Member State whose territory is likely to be affected. The information and the results of the consultations must be taken into account by the competent authority in the decision-making procedure.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers has not received any co-financing under the Structural Funds where Portugal is concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/861 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/861

---

(2004/C 84 E/0953)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status

Would the Commission say which regions which currently come under Structural Fund Objective 1 now have an income exceeding 75 % of average Community GDP and will therefore be excluded from that Objective in future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We adopted our Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion on 19 February 2003. It concluded that on the basis of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 figures available the regions with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of more than 75 % of the Community (EU 15) average losing their eligibility after 2006 would be: Sterea Ellada and South Aegean (Greece), Castile-Leon, Valencia and Canary Islands (Spain), Border, Midlands and Western (Ireland), Sardinia (Italy), Burgenland (Austria), Madeira (Portugal), East Finland, and South Yorkshire (United Kingdom).

We draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that future eligibility for the ‘convergence’ objective will however be based on the average of the figures for the three most recent years available when the regulatory framework for the Structural Funds is adopted.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/862 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/862

---

(2004/C 84 E/0954)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Fiscal incentives to encourage job creation

Has the Commission any precise statistics concerning job creation within the European Union as a result of fiscal incentives offered to companies which provide jobs for certain population groups (women, young people, etc.)?

Have any studies been carried out which analyse — from a cost-benefit point of view — the effect which reducing the levies imposed on employment (including social-security contributions) has on the labour market?

Has any analysis been carried out into whether or not such a reduction could jeopardise budget stability and whether or not a moderate increase in indirect taxation would be sufficient to counter that risk?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

There are no EU level statistics on the employment effects of fiscal incentives for enterprises.

However, some Member States report in their national actions plans for employment and in their evaluations on these plans that the reduction in social security contributions (SSC) from enterprises, have significant effects on employment when they are targeted. In France, it was estimated that a FFR 40 billion reduction of employers' SSC had created 106-170000 jobs between 1993 and 1999 (plus 67000 jobs through the introduction of the 35-hours week). Reduced employers' SSC have even reversed the upward trend in unskilled labour.

Moreover, a Spanish report provides econometric estimates of the elasticity of employment with respect to different types of taxes; it concludes that, despite some methodological uncertainties, a reduction of employers' SSC has, by far, the most positive employment effects. Similar conclusions are reached in a Belgian report, on the basis of macro-simulations from the Federal Planning Bureau (23000 jobs created by a EUR 1,2 billion reduction of employers' SSC; 10700 jobs created in the social profit sector by a EUR 0,25 billion reduction). The ultimate criterion used here is the number of jobs created per billion euro net investment in different measures, where the term ‘net investment’ means that feedback effects have been taken into account (through wage and price adjustments, government budgets, consumption, etc.).

It is widely accepted that the tax burden on labour is a crucial determinant of labour supply decisions, notably for low-income earners, people starting their working career and members of single earner households with children (1). However, there is insufficient empirical evidence on the macroeconomic effects on employment of the reduction in tax and social security contributions (2), despite the results of the mentioned modelling researches. An accurate evaluation of net effects on employment should take into account the dead-weight, and the substitution and displacement effects. And these effects are difficult to evaluate.

As mentioned earlier there is still insufficient research evidence on the macroeconomic effects of a reduction in tax and social security contributions. However, there is some evidence on the double dividend effect, obtained in macroeconomic simulation studies. These studies generally show that environmental tax reforms may have a small positive impact on employment without jeopardizing budget stability, when the revenues from increased environmental taxes are used to reduce employers' social security contributions. We expect to be able to provide some more information on the effects of a reduction in tax and social security contributions in the EC publication ‘Employment in Europe 2004’.

---

(1)  See for further information the EC publication ‘Employment in Europe 2003’, September 2003 (Chapter 3).

(2)  Some indications can be found in the ‘Impact evaluation of the European Employment strategy. Technical analysis’ from the Commission and in the OECD (1999), ‘Benefit systems and work incentives’ but also in the EC Economic Paper No 183 ‘How much has labour taxation contributed to European structural employment?’, dated May 2003. See for further information http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_strategy/impact_en.htm

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/863 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/863

---

(2004/C 84 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   MEDA programme and regions

As a Mediterranean region, Valencia has important social and economic links with its neighbouring countries and regions.

In connection with the forthcoming review of the MEDA programme budget, has the Commission taken into account the possibility of coordinating activities with regional governments in Mediterranean areas? Are there any studies on the feasibility of creating interregional structures within the Mediterranean basin in order to improve economic cooperation and increase development aid in the area?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission attaches particular importance to the role of regions and local authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. One of the objectives of that partnership is to involve the public and civil society more closely. Local and regional authorities are important and useful partners in the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean partnership that is close to the people and the Commission welcomes their growing interest in cooperation with Euro-Mediterranean partners.

On 22 February 2002 in Barcelona, the mayors of Euro-Mediterranean cities were united in the desire to inject new dynamism into the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and create a forum for dialogue, exchanges and cooperation. Their declaration, referred to as the Euro-Med Pact, was the result of a very long-standing wish on the part of the cities to have their own forum within the Euro-Mediterranean framework. The Valencia Action Plan, endorsed by the Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers on 23 April 2002, ‘welcomed the Declaration of the Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean cities held in Barcelona last February. It also agreed that the Euromed Pact proposal presented by Eurocities merited further study.’

In 2003, following on from these political decisions and declarations, the Commission launched a pilot programme on cooperation between Euro-Mediterranean cities (Medact) with the objective of making a start on the first projects. The work done so far demonstrates that the local authorities are both willing and able to play an active part in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation programmes. It was decided during the regional programming exercise for 2005-2006 that this work should be supported and developed through a cooperation programme for Euro-Mediterranean cities and local authorities (Medact), with the aim of developing cooperation, exchanges and dialogue between them. EUR 5 million has been allocated for this.

Lastly, the Commission is planning to set up a new neighbourhood instrument in 2007. It will provide European regions and local authorities with a framework for working with southern-Mediterranean partners on cross-border and trans-national cooperation programmes and projects.

The Commission is confident that these cooperation instruments will pave the way for more active and more concerted involvement by European towns and regions in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/864 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/864

---

(2004/C 84 E/0956)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Facilitating access by SMEs to risk capital

What action has the Commission taken during the current parliamentary term in order to facilitate access by European SMEs to risk capital?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Access to finance, in particular risk capital, is an important part of the Commission's policy of encouraging entrepreneurship in Europe. Throughout its term this Commission has been active both in stimulating the provision of formal and informal risk capital to firms, and in improving the framework conditions of finance that have removed obstacles and enabled entrepreneurs to fulfil their ambitions.

The Commission has stimulated the provision of risk capital through the European Technology Facility (ETF) Start-up Scheme, managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF). This instrument was introduced in the Growth and Employment Scheme (1998-2000), set up by the demand of the Parliament. The programme was fully implemented from 1999 onwards and the instrument was continued in the Multiannual Programme for Enterprises and Entrepreneurship (2001-2005). The ETF Start-up scheme has increased the supply of venture capital to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the early stages of development and in the high technology sectors where there is a market failure.

By the end of September 2003, EUR 151 million had been invested in 21 venture capital funds under the ETF Start-up Scheme, which has allowed the mobilisation of at least EUR 558 million of funding from other sources. 240 companies with high growth potential have benefited from ETF Start-up. Although the last three years have been very difficult in the risk capital markets, a further positive influence on job creation can be expected in the next year or two, particularly in information technology and biotechnology/life sciences. The revolving nature of risk capital investments means that although investments are risky, successful ones will be returned, with profit, to the Community budget. It should also be mentioned that under the SME Guarantee Facility, a contract has been signed providing guarantees for equity investments in regional venture capital funds. The external evaluation of the SME assistance schemes of the Commission concluded that the ETF Start-Up Scheme and the SME Guarantee Facility have been efficient ways of helping SMEs.

The CREA Seed Capital Action was financed by the Third Multiannual Programme for SMEs (1997-2000), which took off in 1999. With a budget allocation of EUR 8 million it supported recently created seed capital funds and has 18 active funds that have so far invested EUR 151 million in 218 companies (of which the funds are still invested in 174), creating 2,205 new jobs. The majority of these funds invest locally or regionally in new enterprises in information technology, communications, electronics and life sciences.

Under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) the 2000-2006 programming period has emphasised risk capital instruments in SME financing. The Commission has encouraged Member States to co-finance products like venture capital. A ‘Guide to risk capital financing in regional policy’ was published in October 2002 to this end. Support for risk capital financing from the EU Structural Funds has increased to EUR 1,152 million with Member States providing an additional EUR 2,140 million. Most Member States have or are introducing schemes and the new Member States are encouraged to do so too.

In improving the framework conditions of finance, the Risk Capital Action Plan (RCAP) of 1998-2003 achieved considerable progress and attained all its political and many technical objectives. Enterprises' and public authorities' awareness about the strategic importance of risk capital and the possibilities provided by it are now well enshrined in Europe. The RCAP has played a political role in supporting those directly or indirectly involved in risk capital activities. The philosophy behind the RCAP is already permeating other regional, national and Community policies and programmes.

The Commission Communication Access to finance of small and medium-sized enterprises' (1) of 1 December 2003 and the ‘Action Plan: The European Agenda for Entrepreneurship’ of 11 February 2004 further defined the Commission's commitment to developing risk capital investment and emphasised the need to increase equity in the balance sheets of SMEs, focusing on venture capital, business angel finance and other private individuals as sources of equity investments. Under a pilot action of 1998-2000 that was fully evaluated, the Commission also directly supported the setting up of business angel networks. A project in 2001-2002 identified good practices on stimulating business angel activities in the Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission's Communication ‘Investing in research: an action plan for Europe’ (2) adopted in April 2003, points, among other things, to the need to adapt the treatment of risk capital to avoid double taxation of investors and funds, and to strengthen future guarantee schemes and risk capital activities managed by the EIF to support R&D activities.

In August 2001, the Commission published a ‘Communication on State Aid and Risk Capital’ (3) setting out the detailed criteria for approval of new risk capital schemes involving state aid. These provide a basis for estimating the amount of any aid and deciding whether it is allowable. Further examination of state aid in remedying market failures will happen in 2004 and 2005.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 713 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 226 final.

(3)  OJ C 235, 21.8.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/865 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/865

---

(2004/C 84 E/0957)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Reform in the fruit and vegetable sector

The Irish EU Presidency recently announced to the European Parliament that during its term of office the Commission would put forward proposals for reform in the fresh and processed fruit and vegetable sectors.

The Commission has already tackled crucial aspects of the COM via the Management Committee, using a procedure which prevented Parliament from either expressing an opinion or voting on the changes made. The result was a genuine reform of the rules governing the way in which producer organisations operate.

Would the Commission say which aspects will be dealt with in the next reform?

Is the Commission intending to submit a discussion paper (as it did in the case of the recent CAP reforms, including the package of ‘Mediterranean’ reforms) which will enable a debate to be held before the legislative texts are submitted?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Our review of the fruit and vegetable sector has not yet produced final conclusions. Therefore we cannot yet say what will be contained in any proposals.

We remind the Honourable Member that we presented a communication on the sector in 2001 that launched a wide democratic debate in which Parliament, the Council (with conclusions by the Spanish Presidency), the Member States and civil society have been participants. We have been and are working on the basis of the contributions made.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/866 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/866

---

(2004/C 84 E/0958)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Synergy in EU funding programmes

If there is to be greater operational synergy amongst the many EU funding programmes, there must be considerably better coordination between the European Investment Bank and the Commission.

Hence why has there not hitherto been better coordination between structural funds, R&D funds, cohesion funds and EIB/EIF loans? Would it be feasible to set up an independent unit within the Commission for the purpose of effectively coordinating the management of funds within the various directorates-general, and also the funding provided by the EIB and the EIF?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group (1) have established practices to coordinate the use of their financing instruments by means of inter-institutional cooperation agreements or joint memoranda of understanding covering in particular the areas of regional development and research and development.

Furthermore, the Commission and the services of the EIB Group have been examining together, in the context of a Joint Working Party, practical ways to increase the combined use of the respective financing tools of the two institutions, in particular through more streamlined procedures and a more systematic and timely exchange of information on upcoming projects.

With respect to coordination between EIB and Structural and Cohesion Funds, a number of important steps have already been taken to facilitate the joint programming of interventions (global commitments by the European Investment Fund (EIF) in the framework of Community Support Frameworks; appropriate modulation of intervention rate; advisory role of the EIF in developing financing mechanisms for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at regional level). As regards collaboration between the Research and Development Framework Programme and the EIB Group, the above-mentioned cooperation agreement establishes a framework for joint work. Similar agreements are envisaged for other major policy areas, notably those where EIB financing can provide a crucial complement to Community budget intervention.

Against that background the Commission does not consider the establishment of a special coordination unit to be necessary.

---

(1)  The EIB Group includes the EIB itself and the European Investment Fund (EIF).

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/867 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/867

---

(2004/C 84 E/0959)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Possibility of registering rating agencies in Europe

In the framework of Parliament's vote on the Katiforis report on rating agencies (A5-0040/2004 — P5_TA-PROV(2004)0080), what kind(s) of European registration scheme is the Commission planning to investigate?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

With regard to the vote by Parliament on the report on rating agencies presented by Mr Katiforis, Mr Margallo would like to know what kind(s) of European registration schemes the Commission is planning to investigate.

The Commission would recall that, at the informal meeting of Economics and Finance Ministers in Oviedo in April 2002, it gave an undertaking to examine the role and methods of rating agencies as part of a raft of measures to be carried out in the wake of the Enron scandal.

At the same time, several initiatives were launched on the matter at international level. These include the work undertaken by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and national regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr Katforis' report makes an important contribution to the matter. In October 2003 the Commission Directorate-General for the Internal Market set up four professional expert groups with a view to examining, among other things, the strategic priorities for the measures to be taken by the Commission in the coming years. One of these groups will focus in particular on the securities sector. The Commission will take into account the conclusions of these professional expert groups, which will be published by the end of April 2004, and open for public consultation from May to July 2004. A high-level conference will take place on 22/23 June 2004. Only after an analysis of the results of the public consultations and the conclusions of the high-level conference will the Commission adopt an official position on the subject of rating agencies in general and on the issue of their registration in Europe in particular.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/868 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/868

---

(2004/C 84 E/0960)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Streamlining the Commission's coordination of Member States' economic policies

The Commission's attempts to streamline the coordination and consistency of Member States' economic and employment policy guidelines have to date not always produced very concrete or functional results. In spite of these attempts, the process by which the economic policies of the Member States are coordinated remains extremely bureaucratic, complicated and long-winded, and provides very little room for public debate, either at European or national level.

Does the Commission intend to undertake a genuine revision of its methods for monitoring and coordinating the economies of the Member States, after having conducted a real consultation with the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, in order to allow the democratic deficit to be reduced?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

The Commission has recently announced an initiative for enhancing economic governance in the EU. This was prompted by the 25 November 2003 Ecofin Council conclusions which showed the need for better and more effective economic governance. In this context, the Commission is exploring options that could help raise the effectiveness of economic governance including a new balance between the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and the Stability and Growth Pact as instruments to coordinate economic policy. This new initiative is evidence of the fact that the methods for monitoring and coordinating economic policies of Member States are updated and revised if and when needed. The initiative follows last year's reform of policy coordination in the context of streamlining the economic and employment guidelines. The Commission believes that it is conducive both to greater policy coherence through better aligned coordination instruments and enhanced effectiveness through increased focus on implementation: the new three-year coordination cycle helps Member States to better implement EU policy guidance that is focused on key policy issues and derived from thorough analysis and debate.

Policy coordination is a learning-by-doing process and the experiences with streamlining of the economic and employment policy guidelines are only one year old. The Commission will carefully consider additional steps deemed appropriate and discuss the matter with all the parties concerned.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/868 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/868

---

(2004/C 84 E/0961)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Enhancing the image of the euro and the European Union in non-member countries

From reading a number of non-European newspapers, it becomes clear that there is a lack of understanding about the euro and its real economic, political and financial implications.

As part of the Euro campaign, is the Commission not envisaging measures targeted at professional circles and universities to improve the perception of the euro at international level and thus encourage its use?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware that the image of the euro and the European Union in general in third countries requires a long-haul information and communication campaign. As part of its information and communication strategy ‘Framework for a Commission strategy for the euro and economic and monetary union in 2004 and beyond,’ the Commission is planning from 2004 onwards, to improve perception of the euro and its economic, political and financial implications in those countries.

In 2003 the Commission took part in the organisation of an international seminar in Santiago de Chile (‘The European experience of the euro: Building an economic and monetary union, a joint assessment by European and Latin American macroeconomists’, 20/21 October 2003) as well as consciousness-raising conferences in Athens (‘Europe, the Mediterranean and the euro’, 3/4 February 2003) and in Warsaw (‘From accession to adopting the euro’, 21 November 2003).

Via its information and communication strategy from 2004 onwards, the Commission is planning in particular to organise in third countries seminars and conferences as part of the euro campaign. Professionals and academics will be among those targeted by the strategy, which will help enhance the image of the euro and the European Union in third countries.

External information activities scheduled for 2004 include: monitoring of the media in important financial centres (United States, Japan and South-East Asia); information seminars for press and information officers in the delegations; and organisation of activities in cooperation with the Union delegations. In this connection, a cycle of five conferences is to take place in the United States at the Institute for International Economics (Washington), Harvard University, the University of California (Berkeley), the University for Chicago and the University of Texas (Austin). In South Africa two conferences will be held in Johannesburg and Cape Town. External information activities are also planned for Brazil.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/869 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/869

---

(2004/C 84 E/0962)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Promotion of the international role of the euro in transactions between eurozone countries and third countries

The Commission has always shown little interest in promoting the use of the euro in major transactions with third countries, particularly those relating to the supply of raw materials.

Despite the limited role which the Commission could play in this connection, there can be no doubt that an increased use of the euro in transactions of this kind would reduce the cost of products in Europe and at the same time increase the competitiveness of products and the European economy.

Has the time not come for the Commission to abandon its neutral position, which has been frequently misunderstood by third countries, as these sometimes interpret the Commission's attitude as a certain denial of the European currency, or at least as a lack of interest by the Commission in the European currency which, in addition to being a means of exchange between the 12 EU Member States, is also an international exchange and reserve currency?

As part of the implementation of its budgetary commitments, does the Commission have any specific plans for campaigns to promote the euro in the new accession countries in order to encourage use of the euro in transactions between these countries and the eurozone countries, given that this would reduce the cost of such transactions, in particular with the networks of chambers of commerce and industry?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The international use of the euro has gradually increased since its introduction. In 2003, the euro represented 31 % of international bond issues, 23 % of foreign exchange settlements and 19 % of official foreign exchange reserves. The euro also plays a significant role in trade in non-euro area countries that have strong ties with the euro area. Finally, it serves as an anchor currency in exchange rate regimes of a number of countries, mainly in Europe, northern Africa and the French African Community (CFA) Franc Zone.

The fact that the bulk of international commodity trade is denominated in US Dollars (USD) does not automatically imply that denomination of these imports in euro would reduce their price or price variability. For crude oil, for example, in the past three decades, exchange rate movements have sometimes played to the advantage of European importers and sometimes to their disadvantage.

The best contribution policy can make — and is indeed making — in order for markets to increasingly adopt the euro at the international scale is to improve the euro's usefulness in the three functions of means of payment, unit of account and store of value. The European Central Bank's (ECB) stability-oriented monetary framework and efforts to improve financial market (infra-) structure and to harmonize financial market regulations thus strengthen the euro's international perspectives. Furthermore, progress on the external representation front would also no doubt increase the international status of the euro. Finally, the provision of information to key actors plays an important role.

As regards the 10 acceding Member States, their adhesion to the EU implies their future adoption of the euro when they meet the convergence criteria. For these countries, the euro is already the dominant invoicing currency in their trade. Its use in exports of the ten Acceding Countries for which data is available ranges from 22 % (Cyprus) to 87 % (Slovenia).

Since 2003, the Commission has organised information and communication activities, such as the conference that took place in Warsaw on the subject ‘From accession to adopting the euro’, in which the Parliament participated. Among the structural activities achieved in 2003, there is the preparation of a ‘Framework for a Communication Strategy for the euro and Economic and Monetary Union in 2004 and beyond’ to be implemented in 2004. New Member States are privileged beneficiaries of the activities planned in this strategy. The Commission plans to introduce partnership agreements with these States, which will allow them to progressively integrate experiences with a view to the use of the euro. In addition, information seminars will be organised with Information and Communication Officers from Central Banks and Ministries of Finance of these States. Other groups, including the media, as well as organisations such as chambers of commerce and industry of those countries, are the targeted groups of the Commission's plans to promote and encourage the use of the euro in the new Member States.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/870 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/870

---

(2004/C 84 E/0963)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0754/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Establishment of a European legal framework for hedge funds

How does the Commission plan to follow up the report by Mr Purvis (A5-0476/2003) on hedge funds, and in particular the possibility of establishing a European legal framework to regulate them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Regarding Parliament's vote on the report by Mr Purvis on hedge funds, Mr Margallo would like to know what follow-up action the Commission is planning, particularly on the possibility of establishing a European legal framework to regulate such funds.

The Commission would first remind the Honourable Member that, at their informal meeting in Oviedo in April 2002, the Economics and Finance Ministers undertook to examine the role played by hedge funds. This undertaking formed part of a raft of measures taken in the wake of the Enron scandal.

At the same time, several initiatives were launched at international level in this connection, including by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and national regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The report by Mr Purvis represents a major contribution in this respect. It should also be borne in mind that the Commission's Internal Market Directorate-General set up in October 2003 four professional expert working groups to examine, among other things, the strategic priorities for the work to be undertaken by the Commission in the years ahead. One of the groups has been charged with examining asset management while another will look into securities issues. The Commission will, of course, take into account the groups' conclusions, which will be published by the end of April and then opened for public consultation between May and July. A high-level conference will be held on 22/23 June. It is only after the results of the public consultation and the conclusions of the high-level conference have been analysed that the Commission will take an official position on the subject of derivatives and alternative investment funds.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/871 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/871

---

(2004/C 84 E/0964)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Statistics relating to the harmonised consumer price index in Europe

The harmonised consumer price index used by Eurostat is a benchmark for comparing inflation between Member States but, without casting doubt on its highly sophisticated scientific nature, how does the Commission explain the persistent feeling among the public in the euro zone that price rises far exceed the increase recorded by the harmonised consumer price index?

Does the Commission realise that, if it cannot be changed, this public perception will have particularly negative effects as it is common knowledge that inflationary factors have very important psycho-sociological interactions and that the fall or stagnation in household consumption can partly be explained by this perception, which may well be mistaken, but which demands a convincing response?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission has noted the discrepancy between price increases recorded by official statistics such as the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) and measures of perceived inflation in several Member States. There are various possible explanations for such discrepancy. One that has received supportive evidence (see for example Eurostat's June 2003 HICP press release) is related to the fact that, following the euro cash changeover, consumers experienced significant price increases for some types of goods and services, mostly small services and some frequently bought items. These goods tend to have a large impact on how the public perceives price developments, whereas, due to their relatively small weight in the overall basket of consumption measured by Consumer Price Indices, their price increases were offset by more moderate price developments in other categories of goods and services.

The Commission is fully aware of the possible macroeconomic risks that might stem from the mismatch between inflation perceptions and recorded inflation. However, the Commission also notes that other more fundamental elements are generally advanced as having a stronger bearing on the behaviour of private consumption expenditure. These include changes in unemployment levels, in wages, in asset prices and in the fiscal stance of Member States. Hence, on the basis of available economic evidence it appears unlikely that the discrepancy between recorded and perceived inflation would be a major element behind the recent behaviour of private consumption in the euro area.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/872 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/872

---

(2004/C 84 E/0965)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0757/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Strengthening the role of market operators in the integration of European financial markets

The Lamfalussy process has brought about significantly greater participation of financial services professionals in drafting the relevant European legislation, with every positive outcome.

However, there still needs to be more effective coordination of market operators because although market integration obviously requires legislation it also relies on the harmonisation of national market practices and greater standardisation of products.

Should the Commission not encourage the establishment of such rules at European level, along the lines of the EONIA (Euro OverNight Index Average)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission welcomes the fact that the Honourable Member shares its view regarding the beneficial effects of the Lamfalussy process. It agrees with its analysis as to the greater positive participation of financial services professionals in drafting the relevant European legislation.

Alongside the planned legal framework for drafting Community legislation, the Commission is generally amenable to any initiative designed to strengthen the integration of European financial markets and to promote their growth and further development. Accordingly, an independent bank initiative such as that establishing a reference rate for markets along the lines of the EONIA is altogether positive and deserves support.

In May 2004 the European financial services market will certainly need more European indices as well as agreements and even standards for certain products — a task in which market participants could take the lead.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/873 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/873

---

(2004/C 84 E/0966)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0758/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Loss of investor confidence following recent financial scandals

In the light of recent financial scandals, what avenues is the Commission exploring to restore public confidence in the financial markets? What measures does it envisage taking?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission largely agrees with the concerns outlined in the resolution adopted by the Parliament on 11 February 2004. Most of these concerns are already covered by the Commission Communication on Reinforcing statutory audit in the EU (1); the Commission Communication on statutory audit in the European Union: the way forward (2); the Action Plan on Company Law and Corporate Governance (3) and the Financial Services Action Plan (4). These action plans have been fine-tuned to take account of the most recent developments.

The Commission adopted on 16 March 2004 (5) a proposal that fundamentally changes the European regulatory regime for auditors. The proposal clarifies the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and ethics, by introducing a requirement for external quality assurance and by ensuring robust public oversight of the audit profession. This considerably broadens the scope of the former Eighth Council Directive on Company Law (5), which only dealt with the approval of statutory auditors.

Although prepared well in advance of the Parmalat scandal, the proposal has been adjusted to take into account the specific implications of that case. For example, it addresses group audits and public oversight. Based upon the experience in the Ahold case, the proposal also clarifies the role of the audit committee in relation to the internal control of the company. Following the Ahold case, the proposal now specifically states that in the case of public interest entities, the audit committee must monitor the effectiveness of the company's internal control, internal audit, and risk management systems.

Moreover, the proposed Directive would require that only non-audit practitioners can participate in the governance of the system of public oversight of auditors of ‘public interest entities’ — in other words mainly listed companies, banks and insurance companies.

Further action will comprise a proposal which will require more transparency in transactions with related parties — especially regarding the use of special purpose vehicles. Moreover, the proposal will provide clarification of the responsibility of directors for the financial statements and key non-financial information and the publication of an annual corporate governance statement by listed companies. Moreover, the Commission will issue a recommendation on the role of non-executive directors.

The Commission will propose a 3rd Money Laundering Directive that will prescribe more detailed customer due diligence requirements for all intermediaries — ranging from financial institutions to corporate service providers. Given the role that investment banks, rating agencies and the financial analysts played in the Parmalat affair, the Commission will analyse whether further regulation is needed.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 2.10.2003.

(2)  OJ C 143, 8.5.1998.

(3)  COM(2003) 284 final.

(4)  COM(1999) 232 final.

(5)  COM(2004) 177 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/874 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/874

---

(2004/C 84 E/0967)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   General framework for ensuring European financial market stability

In view of the fact that financial integration will result in financial institutions becoming increasingly involved in crossborder transactions which may significantly increase systemic risks and crossborder financial contagion, is the Commission considering giving the national central banks and the European Central Bank a greater role in this context, entailing more than just the existing cooperation and exchange of information?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The integration of the EU financial sector poses new challenges with respect to financial stability, as cross-border and cross-sector linkages intensify contagion risk. In consequence, the process of financial integration requires closer co-ordination between the competent national authorities that are responsible for the regulation, supervision and crisis management of financial institutions, backed up by appropriate regulatory and institutional arrangements at the EU level.

While there is a substantial EU framework of prudential legislation for the financial sector, supervision and crisis management are mainly national competences. The involvement of national central banks in supervision varies from Member State to Member State. Regardless of the chosen national structure, however, the Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that all efforts should be made to ensure that all the relevant authorities interact efficiently at the EU level.

The two Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) reports on financial stability (April 2000) and crisis management (April 2001) — the so-called Brouwer reports — assessed whether the existing regulatory and supervisory structures in the EU could safeguard financial stability and specifically addressed issues of cross-border and cross-sector co-ordination among national supervisors and central banks within the EU. These reports concluded that the existing institutional arrangements for co-operation are appropriate, but that their functioning should be enhanced. Implementation of the recommendations in these reports is kept under regular review by the Ecofin Council and considerable progress has been made.

A Memorandum of Understanding on co-operation in crisis situations was signed between banking supervisors and central banks, including the European Central Bank, in all of the Member States in 2003. In addition, the Commission has proposed an extension of the Lamfalussy approach to all financial sectors. This will provide the appropriate forums for strengthening the co-operation among national supervisors at EU-level — including central banks where appropriate. The new committee structure also aims at facilitating regulatory convergence among Member States in their implementation of EU financial regulation. The Financial Conglomerate Directive, which will be implemented in Member States in August 2004, will also improve the efficient supervision of cross-border groups by introducing a co-ordinating supervisor.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/874 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/874

---

(2004/C 84 E/0968)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   European passport and the sale of financial products in Europe

Will it be possible for a Member State to oppose the sale of a financial instrument with a European passport under the Prospectus Directive, in particular if it regards the instrument as too risky for the target public among which it is to be marketed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The fundamental point is that the principle of complete freedom of movement of capital is embodied in the Treaty itself. Articles 56 to 60 of the EC Treaty established new rules on movements of capital. Article 56, which is directly applicable, introduced the principle of complete freedom of movement of capital and payments, both between Member States and between Member States and third countries, while Article 58 defines the areas where Member States are allowed to retain provisions on information, supervision and tax law provided that capital movements are not hampered.

Community law requires prior information to be provided when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market.

Directive 2003/71/EC (1) does not authorise host Member States to oppose a sale or require further information on the grounds that documentation is incomplete or insufficient concerning the risk factor involved in the investment if that documentation has been approved by the competent authority in the country of origin.

On the other hand, the Directive does not prohibit host Member States from laying down specific rules on the use of advertising when securities are offered to the public.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/875 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/875

---

(2004/C 84 E/0969)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0767/04

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   eEurope 2005 Action Plan

Discussions are currently taking place with regard to the implementation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan.

Will the Commission make a statement regarding the guarantees that will be included in this Plan to ensure that cultural and linguistic diversities will be protected at all times within the framework of the implementation of this programme, and can the Commission provide guarantees that the benefits of new and evolving information technologies will be extended to both rural and urban areas and equally to peripheral areas within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission would like to reaffirm the importance it attaches to maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. The information society can reinforce diversity and allow a wide range of services to be offered in locai languages and meeting specific local needs. The eEurope 2005 Action Plan aims to promote the development of services applications and content and the Commission believes that this will make a major contribution to ensuring that European culture at all levels can flourish.

The question refers to the ongoing discussions on the implementation of eEurope. This is the mid-term review which was planned to ensure that the action plan, agreed by 15 Member States at the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) is appropriate for an enlarged EU of 25 members. The Commission undertook a survey of Member States and Acceding Countries at the end of 2003 and the general response was that eEurope is a valuable programme and its objectives do not need to be adjusted. This represents a vote of confidence from across Europe in the strategy and objectives of eEurope which include linguistic and cultural diversity and ensuring an information society for all, including urban, rural and peripheral areas.

eEurope is an umbrella covering a wide range of actions and programmes and one of the most important in relation to diversity is the eContent programme. This programme supports the increased availability, use and distribution of European digital content. It aims at improving access for all to high-quality digital content on the global networks, in a multiplicity of languages. A work programme for the years 2003 and 2004 was adopted by the Commission on 19 December 2002 with an expected budget of EUR 26,5 million in 2004.

The Commission has also proposed a new programme, eContentplus (2005-2008) which will support the development of multi-lingual content for innovative, on-line services across the EU. The new programme focuses on three areas: geographical data, educational material and cultural content, and aims at seeking to support the combination of information from different systems — irrespective of format, language or location.

As regards the question on ensuring the benefits of technology to all areas, the Commission has taken steps to allocate resources to areas potentially missed out. The eEurope 2005 Action Plan indicates the need for Europe to have widespread availability of broadband access at competitive prices. Although investment in broadband will mainly come from the private sector, the Action Plan proposes to support deployment in less favoured areas. To this end, the Commission published a Staff Working Paper giving ‘Guidelines on the criteria and modalities of the use of structural funds in electronic communications’ (1). The purpose of these guidelines is to help Member States and regions prepare their electronic communications infrastructure projects (including broadband) for presentation for European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) support.

---

(1)  SEC(2003)895.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/876 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/876

---

(2004/C 84 E/0970)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject:   La Breña II dam — compensation measures

The Commission's decision, in December 2003, to co-finance with EUR 80 million the La Breña dam, part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, included a set of compensation measures agreed with the Spanish authorities. These are presumably meant to reduce the negative impacts of the project.

Will the Commission provide a list of these compensation measures? Since the new dam will create a reservoir four times the current size in the middle of a Natura 2000 area, how does the Commission consider it possible to compensate for the destruction of more than 2000 ha of high quality habitat? How has the Commission calculated the value of this habitat, which provides the connection between the two last Iberian lynx populations in Spain?

How will the favourable conservation status of a priority species (the Iberian lynx), included in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive, be guaranteed in this project?

Finally, how does the Commission intend to monitor the application of these compensation measures?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission refers to the reply it gave to the Honourable Member's oral question H-1 20/04 raised during question time at Parliament's March I session (1), and provides the following complementary information.

The compensation measures presented by the Spanish authorities in relation to La Breña II reservoir project are substantial and should outweigh any marginal impacts which may occur. To compensate for the loss of the Iberian lynx habitat, it is proposed to expropriate an area of 2 134 hectares (ha) and actively manage favouring the lynx. The Iberian lynx compensatory measures not only focus on habitat conservation and prey species re-introduction; but also target the problems of interConnectivity between two Iberian lynx subpopulations. For this reason, special measures to improve ecological corridors have been designed. Moreover, the compensation package not only focuses on the Iberian lynx, but on other key species present in the site in order to guarantee the overall coherence of the site.

The proposed compensation measures were drawn up by the promoter with the support of key scientific institutions such as the Biological Research Station (Estación Biológica Doñana) and the Department of Ecology, University of Córdoba. Those compensatory measures have been assessed by the Regional Ministry of Environment of the Government of Andalusia and the Spanish Ministry of Environment through the ‘Iberian Lynx Expert Group’. Both institutions have made a favourable assessment.

The reservoir is located in the south-east of the Natura 2000 site overlapping the site's limits. This situation could be qualified as peripheral in relation to the Natura 2000 site. It will affect 625 ha, representing about 1,05 % of 60 000 ha of the site.

The Commission will make available the list of compensation measures, as well as its opinion on this case and other available environmental information related to this project, in accordance with Articles 4(4) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2).

The Commission considers that given the probable effects of the construction of the La Breña II reservoir on the priority species Iberian lynx and the species in Annex I of the Birds Directive (3), and the likely results from the planned compensatory measures contained in the Compensatory Measures Project prepared by the competent authority, it can be concluded that in the long-term, the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network will not be significantly affected.

The Commission expects to receive yearly monitoring reports on the implementation of the project from the Spanish Government.

---

(1)  Written reply, 9.3.2003.

(2)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(3)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/877 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/877

---

(2004/C 84 E/0971)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0780/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in the United Kingdom

In view of the following:

| — | Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | the Unification Church has tried to have the ban on its leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, visiting the United Kingdom lifted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Unification Church has tried to have the ban on its leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, visiting the United Kingdom lifted;

| — | on 15 May the Reverend Moon was sent a letter telling him that he should not attempt to enter the country on the grounds that his ‘presence there would not be conducive to the public good for reasons of public order’. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 May the Reverend Moon was sent a letter telling him that he should not attempt to enter the country on the grounds that his ‘presence there would not be conducive to the public good for reasons of public order’.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade the United Kingdom from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member have not been referred to the Commission.

With regard to the UK authorities' decision to refuse entry to the leader of the Unification Church, Mr Moon, the Commission would point out that, under the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for maintaining public order and ensuring internal security and may, on that basis, decide to refuse permission to third-country nationals to enter and stay in the country.

Furthermore, the Commission is empowered to intervene in respect of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, only where such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation, and on condition that Mr Moon is not a citizen of a Member State other than the United Kingdom.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can institute proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/878 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/878

---

(2004/C 84 E/0972)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Liberalisation of the electricity market — licences for river diversions

The existence of varying systems aggravates imbalances, and this results in there being considerable competitive pressure on Member States which have already set the exact duration of licences. An asymmetric market would not only render such competitive pressure intolerable, but could also jeopardise part of the liberalisation of the electricity market. It would be interesting to know whether corrective measures and interventions are currently being planned in this connection.

Can the Commission provide information on how the licence and approval systems are regulated in the various EU Member States and in the new accession countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Distinction needs to be made between the liberalisation of the electricity market and the relevant permit procedures for hydroelectric power plants.

The EU has developed comprehensive legislation for water policy the Water Framework Directive (1).

The Directive:

| — | addresses all waters (rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters); |
| --- | --- |

—

addresses all waters (rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters);

| — | addresses all sources of human impact on water (including ‘inter alia’ the generation of electricity by thermic power plants or hydroelectric power plants); |
| --- | --- |

—

addresses all sources of human impact on water (including ‘inter alia’ the generation of electricity by thermic power plants or hydroelectric power plants);

| — | sets the legally binding objective of good status for all waters to be achieved/maintained by 2015 as a rule, linked to a non-deterioration clause; |
| --- | --- |

—

sets the legally binding objective of good status for all waters to be achieved/maintained by 2015 as a rule, linked to a non-deterioration clause;

| — | submits all relevant impacts on waters (e.g. abstractions, impoundments, river diversions as well as discharges) to a permit procedure. These controls/permits shall be periodically reviewed and where necessary updated. |
| --- | --- |

—

submits all relevant impacts on waters (e.g. abstractions, impoundments, river diversions as well as discharges) to a permit procedure. These controls/permits shall be periodically reviewed and where necessary updated.

Implementation of the Directive is following a step-by-step approach, with legal transposition into national legislation to be ensured by 22 December 2003 (new Member States: 1 May 2004), first analysis of pressures and impacts by 22 December 2004, followed by the development of river basin management plans under full public participation, to be finalised by 22 December 2009.

The Commission considers that the implementation of this Directive will not only ensure good quality (‘good status’) of waters, but also a sound and predictable basis for technical, financial and political decisions, thus providing a level playing field whilst respecting the different hydrological and environmental conditions in different regions of the Union. Since 2001, implementation of the Directive has been complemented by the comprehensive efforts of the Commission, Member States (including new Member States), non-governmental organisations and stakeholders in the strucure of a common implementation strategy.

The Water Framework Directive and its provisions outlined above will apply to new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004, as it does for current Member States. There are no transition periods.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/879 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/879

---

(2004/C 84 E/0973)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0782/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Liberalisation of the electricity market — special protective provisions

As part of the liberalisation of the electricity market, and in line with the principle of freedom of establishment, particular consideration should be given to whether customised provisions need to be put in place for mountain regions, with the highest priority being accorded to the environmental sustainability of such areas. These particular legislative measures should be clearly reflected in the conditions for granting or renewing licences for river diversions for the purpose of electricity generation, and in the introduction of specific mandatory checks relating to the administration of such licences.

In the framework of the aforementioned liberalisation process, does the Commission consider the introduction of protective provisions for certain ‘sensitive’ areas to be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The EU has developed comprehensive legislation for water policy, the Water Framework Directive (1).

This Directive:

| — | addresses all waters (rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters); |
| --- | --- |

—

addresses all waters (rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters);

| — | addresses all sources of human impact on water (including ‘inter alia’ the generation of electricity by thermic power plants or hydroelectric power plants); |
| --- | --- |

—

addresses all sources of human impact on water (including ‘inter alia’ the generation of electricity by thermic power plants or hydroelectric power plants);

| — | sets the legally binding objective of good status for all waters to be achieved/maintained by 2015 as a rule, linked to a non-deterioration clause; |
| --- | --- |

—

sets the legally binding objective of good status for all waters to be achieved/maintained by 2015 as a rule, linked to a non-deterioration clause;

| — | requires full consideration of specially protected areas (e.g. nature protection areas, drinking water abstraction areas, bathing areas); |
| --- | --- |

—

requires full consideration of specially protected areas (e.g. nature protection areas, drinking water abstraction areas, bathing areas);

| — | submits all relevant impacts on waters (e.g. abstractions, impoundments, river diversions as well as discharges) to a permit procedure. These controls/permits shall be periodically reviewed and where necessary updated. |
| --- | --- |

—

submits all relevant impacts on waters (e.g. abstractions, impoundments, river diversions as well as discharges) to a permit procedure. These controls/permits shall be periodically reviewed and where necessary updated.

Implementation of the Directive is following a step-by-step approach, with legal transposition into national legislation to be ensured by 22 December 2003 (new Member States: 1 May 2004), first analysis of pressures and impacts by 22 December 2004, followed by development of river basin management plans under full public participation, to be finalised by 22 December 2009.

The Commission considers that implementation of this Directive not only will ensure good quality (‘good status’) of waters, but also a sound and predictable basis for technical, financial and political decisions, thus providing for a level playing field whilst respecting the different hydrological and environmental conditions in different regions of the Union as well as specially protected areas. This is also reflected in the binding principle that the environmental objectives of ‘good status’ has to be derived from the conditions of pristine waters in the respective region, thus requiring a tailor-made objective based on clear provisions. Whilst the Directive is already setting an ambitious environmental objective, the EC Treaty stipulates that Member States may introduce or maintain even more stringent protection measures (2).

Implementation of the Directive has been complemented by comprehensive efforts of the Commission, Member States (including new Member States), non-governmental organisations and stakeholders in the frame of a common implementation strategy since 2001.

The Water Framework Directive and its provisions outlined above will apply to the new Member States to join the EU on 1 May 2004 as it does for current Member States; there are no transition periods.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2)  Article 176 of the EC Treaty, consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community, OJ C 325, 24.12.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/880 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/880

---

(2004/C 84 E/0974)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Deportation of parents of Irish/EU citizens

Is the Commission aware that 11 000 parents of children born in Ireland are currently at risk of being forced to leave Ireland? This is despite the fact that the children concerned were born in Ireland and are therefore Irish/EU citizens. The policy of allowing the deportation of parents of Irish/EU child citizens may mean that these children could be forced to leave Ireland and accompany their parents to live in countries where their rights, set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, might not be protected.

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government concerning the rights of Irish/EU citizens whose parents face deportation? Does the Commission agree that this policy discriminates against those child citizens whose parents are third-country nationals?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The situation described by the Honourable Member involves children born in Ireland to parents who are nationals of non-Member States. Like anyone born in Ireland, these children have acquired Irish nationality by ius soli. On the question of the expulsion of nationals, Article 3(1) of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’.

However, in so far as these children have not exercised the right to free movement by leaving Ireland to reside in another Member State, it is not possible to apply the principles of Community law in this case. Consequently, Irish law — even on expulsion — will apply to the situation of children born in Ireland to nationals of non-Member States, and the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/881 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/881

---

(2004/C 84 E/0975)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000)

In 1999, the Portuguese government designated the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (to the south of Faro, in the Algarve) as a special protection zone in accordance with Article 4 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)). Under pressure from the advancing tourism industry, Ria Formosa seems fated to become a pawn in the game of project developers who — according to semi-official plans — wish to develop a total of 21 golf courses and 9 marinas, in addition to 10 building sites intended for flats and villas (Source: Expresso, 11 August 2001).

In recent years, some 25 species of brooding migratory birds have wholly or partly disappeared in the area, including the kingfisher, night heron, red-legged partridge, red-crested pochard and purple heron. Birds of prey have also declined dramatically, because rabbits, hares and hedgehogs have already disappeared.

Woodland has been (unlawfully) cleared, and some forest fires appear not to have ignited spontaneously. The Ria Formosa Reserve (a good 23 000 hectares) seems unlikely to be given protection by the authorities, and is being neglected. Unique sand-dune vegetation in marshland areas is dying out owing to pollution from sewerage effluent from streams discharging into the lagoons. The polluted water is increasing the risk of malaria. The Portuguese Office of Statistics (INE) reports that 12 persons died of malaria in Portugal in 2001 (The News, 14 February 2004).

Does the European Commission agree that this unique nature reserve is being sacrificed to economic activities that conflict with the special protection intended to apply to Ria Formosa?

Will the European Commission draw the Portuguese authorities' attention to the inappropriate development taking place in and around the Ria Formosa nature reserve area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The question describes the threat posed to the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve by the development of tourism facilities and golf courses in particular.

The nature reserve forms part of the ‘Ria Formosa/Castro Marim’ site of Community importance proposed by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), and the ‘Ria Formosa’ special protection area, designated by Portugal in the framework of Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

Combining Articles 7 and 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Portuguese authorities have a duty to take appropriate steps to avoid, in special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated. Moreover, under the same provisions, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

On several occasions, the Commission has already had reason to contact the Portuguese authorities following complaints about non-conformity with the abovementioned provisions in the protected areas mentioned above, particularly as a result of tourism developments identified by the complainants.

The Honourable Member's written question refers to general reports in the Portuguese press, but does not identify the projects under way in the abovementioned protected zones.

The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to identify the projects in question so that it can contact the national authorities and, if appropriate, consider opening infringement proceedings against Portugal on the basis of the information provided.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/882 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/882

---

(2004/C 84 E/0976)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Invalidity of a civil aviation pilot's licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences (ATPL)

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in the 1990s an individual could evidently obtain a Dutch theoretical ATPL via the Opleiding Beroepsvliegers Schiphol flying school, having scored the highest marks for both theory and practice, but subsequently, because of a lack of openings in the Netherlands, looked for a job as a pilot in Germany and, since the Dutch licence is largely unrecognised there, was obliged to obtain a German ATPL at RWL in Mönchengladbach? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in the 1990s an individual could evidently obtain a Dutch theoretical ATPL via the Opleiding Beroepsvliegers Schiphol flying school, having scored the highest marks for both theory and practice, but subsequently, because of a lack of openings in the Netherlands, looked for a job as a pilot in Germany and, since the Dutch licence is largely unrecognised there, was obliged to obtain a German ATPL at RWL in Mönchengladbach?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that individuals with a German licence could also evidently work as a pilot on all types of Boeing aircraft in Europe, the Middle East and Africa — first with Air Berlin (Berlin and Paderborn) for two years and then for Virgin Express in Belgium for seven years — but subsequently be grounded because, as a result of the introduction of new JAR licences, extensions were no longer issued every six months at the same time as medical certification? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that individuals with a German licence could also evidently work as a pilot on all types of Boeing aircraft in Europe, the Middle East and Africa — first with Air Berlin (Berlin and Paderborn) for two years and then for Virgin Express in Belgium for seven years — but subsequently be grounded because, as a result of the introduction of new JAR licences, extensions were no longer issued every six months at the same time as medical certification?

| 3. | Does the Commission regard it as acceptable for extensions to be refused because only the Dutch licence includes a long-distance (Atlantic) flying component although, in order to obtain the German licence, the relevant training is repeated but the component is exempted from mandatory examination because the equivalent component in the Dutch examination is recognised? Is it normal that the German Federal Aviation Agency in Braunschweig should first respond only to JAR applications from within Germany and then issue non-national licence-holders, who have been forgotten, with certification which is valid only within Germany? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission regard it as acceptable for extensions to be refused because only the Dutch licence includes a long-distance (Atlantic) flying component although, in order to obtain the German licence, the relevant training is repeated but the component is exempted from mandatory examination because the equivalent component in the Dutch examination is recognised? Is it normal that the German Federal Aviation Agency in Braunschweig should first respond only to JAR applications from within Germany and then issue non-national licence-holders, who have been forgotten, with certification which is valid only within Germany?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

At present, the conditions for issuing licences to cockpit personnel are not harmonised at Community level. However, Council Directive 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 (1) establishes the principle of mutual acceptance, within the Community, of licences issued by Member States.

The Directive obliges every Member State to accept licences issued by other Member States on the basis of ‘equivalent requirements’. Where reasonable doubts remain as to the equivalence of the licence, the host State may consider that additional requirements and/or tests are necessary to enable the licence to be accepted.

The Directive also provides for the acceptance of licences issued in accordance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, if the bearer satisfies the special validation requirements.

Member States are naturally also subject to the general provisions in the EC Treaty on the freedom of movement, the right of establishment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, and the general principles and case-law of the Court of Justice on mutual recognition.

Directive 91/670/EEC does not prevent the Member States from modifying the terms under which they issue licences, or from limiting the period of acceptance of a foreign licence, particularly when the original licence itself has a limited duration. The Directive also allows acceptance to be conditional upon the licence continuing to satisfy the conditions applicable in the host State, including the validity of a certificate of medical fitness.

In the absence of any precise details on the case at issue, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer in the first paragraph above.

---

(1)  OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/883 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/883

---

(2004/C 84 E/0977)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/04

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Recognition of diplomas

Mr Luca Ghezzi, a resident of Camucia di Cortona (Arezzo), is qualified to pursue the profession of industrial expert.

He applied for a teaching post with the Galilei Galileo ITIS (industrial and technical secondary school) in via D. Menci, Arezzo.

The director of the establishment refused to recognise Mr Ghezzi's qualification as conferring the requisite points, apparently disregarding the table laid down in (Italian) Ministerial Decree No 40 of 16 April 2003 implementing Directive 89/48/EEC (1) and Directive 92/51/EEC (2) and in point B(3) of Annex A to Ministerial Decree No 201 of 25 May 2000.

If the facts are as stated, what measures can the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation and the corresponding national rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The question raised by the Honourable Member prompts the following comments:

| — | Among its fundamental principles, the EC Treaty established freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and free movement for employed persons. So as to facilitate the effective exercise of these freedoms, several legal instruments have been adopted. To this end, Directives 89/48/EEC (3) and 92/51/EEC (4), to which the Honourable Member refers, established a ‘general system’ for the recognition of diplomas between Member States. Under these Directives, a Member State may not in principle refuse to allow a Community national to take up and pursue a regulated profession provided the person concerned holds the diploma required in his or her Member State of origin or provenance for the pursuit of that profession. However, if there are substantial differences in the training undergone by the applicant in comparison with the training required in the host Member State, the latter may require the applicant either to provide evidence of professional experience or to comply with compensatory measures in the form of an adaptation period or an aptitude test. |
| --- | --- |

—

Among its fundamental principles, the EC Treaty established freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and free movement for employed persons. So as to facilitate the effective exercise of these freedoms, several legal instruments have been adopted. To this end, Directives 89/48/EEC (3) and 92/51/EEC (4), to which the Honourable Member refers, established a ‘general system’ for the recognition of diplomas between Member States. Under these Directives, a Member State may not in principle refuse to allow a Community national to take up and pursue a regulated profession provided the person concerned holds the diploma required in his or her Member State of origin or provenance for the pursuit of that profession. However, if there are substantial differences in the training undergone by the applicant in comparison with the training required in the host Member State, the latter may require the applicant either to provide evidence of professional experience or to comply with compensatory measures in the form of an adaptation period or an aptitude test.

| — | From the above it is apparent that the above-mentioned Directives apply only when community nationals wish to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State other than that where they acquired their professional qualifications, and not to situations that are purely internal to a Member State. From the information supplied by the Honourable Member, however, it is not clear that Mr Ghezzi acquired his professional qualifications outside Italy. In consequence, having regard to the facts presented, no presumed violation of the above Directives can be established. |
| --- | --- |

—

From the above it is apparent that the above-mentioned Directives apply only when community nationals wish to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State other than that where they acquired their professional qualifications, and not to situations that are purely internal to a Member State. From the information supplied by the Honourable Member, however, it is not clear that Mr Ghezzi acquired his professional qualifications outside Italy. In consequence, having regard to the facts presented, no presumed violation of the above Directives can be established.

---

(1)  OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

(3)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(4)  Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/884 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/884

---

(2004/C 84 E/0978)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Sludge storage in Ingensche Waarden

Gelderland Province in the Netherlands intends to grant licences for the storage of 11 million cubic metres of sludge in a sand-recovery area near Ingen. The project provides for putting two suction-pump extractors to work to deepen the existing sand pit from 25 to about 40 metres.

The intention, for an expected period of some 15 to 20 years, is to store (dredger) sludge, much of it removed from river beds. Class 3 and 4 sludge contains heavy metals, in particular.

The outer limits of the Ingensche Waarden are — as part of the Lower Rhine — designated as a special protection area (SPA) under Natura 2000. The area is well-known as a wintering habitat for Bewick's swan and the white-fronted goose, and as a brooding habitat for the cornkrake.

According to the compulsory environmental impact report (EIR) there will — as a result of the storage — be no significant disruptive impact.

The EIR fails, even so, to consider any alternative to storing the sludge, such as processing as clinker or brick, or as road-building material.

Nor is there any mention of offsetting (natural) measures. The rural EIR committee notes that there is no mention in the EIR of the gap in knowledge surrounding expectations of the actual effects of concentrations on pollution of flora and fauna.

During and after storage of the dredged sludge, local water quality can be expected to deteriorate temporarily. For some substances a temporary overshoot of the maximum permitted risk level (MPR) cannot be excluded. The potential eco(toxico)logical risks of such situations for specified guide species are not quantified in the EIR.

Special protection areas are subject to the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Assessment Framework, which stipulate that encroachment on the natural characteristics of such areas is only permitted if there are no alternatives and there are urgent reasons of overriding public interest.

Does the Commission consider that the intended action is in conflict with the principles underlying the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and Natura 2000?

Will the Commission arrange to screen all activities in special protection areas, not least the Waal and Lower-Rhine basin area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Following Article 6, § 3, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), which, pursuant to its Article 7, also applies to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

The SPA ‘Neder-Rijn’ has a total area of ca. 2 900 hectares (ha). According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the planned sludge storage project might locally and temporarily affect the water quality within that area. It appears from the information provided that an assessment of the project has been done which shows that there are no significant effects on the site. There is no further information that would suggest a violation of the procedure of Article 6, § 3, of Directive 92/43/EEC. The issue of alternatives is mentioned in Article 6, § 4, of Directive 92/43/EEC which only applies if the project is likely to have significant effects on the site, but must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Since the information from the Honourable Member refers to an assessment concluding that there are no significant effects, it seems at first sight that the provisions of that Directive have been respected. The issue of the need to consider alternatives is further addressed in Article 5 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4). From the information provided, however, it is not evident that this provision is contravened.

It is the responsibility of Member States and not of the Commission to screen activities in special protection areas in order to make sure that the protection regime under Article 6, § 2, 3 and 4 is being respected. For activities where convincing evidence is provided to the Commission that the EU nature protection legislation has been infringed, the Commission has the possibility to open infringement procedures against the Member State responsible.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as amended by Commission Directive 91/224/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(4)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/886 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/886

---

(2004/C 84 E/0979)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   The European School in Amsterdam

Parents of a number of pupils, as well as teachers at the European School in Amsterdam have expressed deep concern at the Netherlands authorities' announced cut in public funding for the school, apparently the result of a decision to cut subsidies for basic-level foreign language teaching.

The Portuguese authorities claim that they provide funding for a school in Portugal where Dutch is taught, and hence would expect reciprocal treatment, and have so far refused to take over the task of funding from the Netherlands.

Since teaching the language of the country of origin in primary schools is vital in facilitating freedom of movement and is practised and funded by substantial Community appropriations for the European school system, this issue is bound to be of interest to the Community institutions.

Can the Commission therefore say whether it does not consider that a legislative initiative should be launched in the form of a policy strategy providing guidelines for the Member States in this sphere, or any other initiative aimed at avoiding mutual shirking of responsibility and helping to ensure that language teaching may continue, as it is extremely important for communication and freedom of movement in Europe?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

On the basis of the information provided, the question concerns the organisation of education systems. As it is, according to Article 149 of the EC Treaty, responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems lies with the Member States. The role of the Commission in the area of education is to encourage cooperation between Member States and to support and supplement their action.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that, on 25 July 1977, the Council adopted Directive 77/486/EEC on the education of the children of migrant workers (1). This Directive is concerned with promoting improvements in the conditions of freedom of movement for workers as regards the reception and education of their children, and underlines how important it is for host Member States to take appropriate measures, in conjunction with the Member States of origin, to promote the teaching of the mother tongue and of the culture of the country of origin of such children, with a view principally to facilitating their possible reintegration into the Member State of origin. The Commission has no plans to put forward any new legislative proposals.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 6.8.1977.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/886 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/886

---

(2004/C 84 E/0980)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0825/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Opinion of the Council's Legal Service challenged by the Commission

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1) ensures the continued protection of the waters off the Azores and Madeira until the entry into force of a regulation fixing the maximum annual fishing effort or, at the latest, until 31 July 2004.

This is a simple fact, which was confirmed by the Council's Legal Service in its opinion on the matter delivered at the meeting of the Council's Working Party on Fisheries held on 19 February (File No 6670/04 of 25 February).

The Commission corroborated this fact in its press release of 3 February 2004 (IP/04/153) in which it states ‘the proposed ban would ensure the continuation of the protection hitherto afforded to these habitats by the special access regime’.

In the meantime, on 5 February the Spanish authorities informed the Portuguese press that the Commission's legal service had confirmed that the special access regime was no longer in force.

On 6 February a ‘note de dossier’ emerged, recorded in the Council's minutes as a ‘speaking note’ from the Commission, which despite not dealing with this issue in either its statement of the problem or its conclusions, incorporated a paragraph which might lead to the conclusion that Article 15 of the Regulation can be ignored.

Can the Commission explain this total reversal of its position on the protection of the waters off the Azores and Madeira in the space of three days?

Can it say how the Spanish authorities were able to guess on 5 February that this radical change in position was to take place the following day?

Can the Commission give an assurance that it is not behind the unidentified sources which created a false ‘legal opinion’ from the Commission's Legal Service that would bring forward the liberalisation of access to the waters off the Azores and Madeira, thereby totally contradicting the position of the Council's Legal

Service?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At the meeting of the Working Party on Internal/External Fisheries Policy of the Council on 19 February 2004, the Commission circulated a speaking note concerning the entry into force of some Articles of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95. More specifically, it was said in the speaking note that Articles 5 (on the access regime to the Azores and other outermost regions) and 13 (on the control regime) of this Regulation entered into force on 14 November 2003 and that they prevail over the 1995 Regulations, despite the fact that these latter Regulations are still in force for another few months. This speaking note was based on the opinion of the Commission's Legal Service.

As for the Council Legal Service, according to the document that the Honourable Member is referring to (Document 6670/04 of the Council), it said that Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 was in force since 14 November 2003 and applies from then unless expressly said otherwise, which is fully in line with the Commission's view as referred to above.

The press communication of the Commission of 3 February 2004 relates only to the proposal of the Commission to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (2) which would prohibit trawling in the waters around the Azores as well as around Madeira and the Canary Islands; it is not related to the access regime as such. The idea behind the proposed ban is to continue, at Community level, the restrictions on fishing gear applied so far within the framework of the special access regime. That would ensure that these waters continue to be protected from the damage that bottom-trawl fishing gear can cause to the highly sensitive deep-water habitats found in these areas.

Hence, the Commission has not changed its point of view that has been maintained since this Regulation was adopted by the Council.

Finally, the Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission is in constant dialogue with the concerned Member States in order to ensure as smooth an application of the new rules as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/888 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/888

---

(2004/C 84 E/0981)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Parmatour: tourism concern owned by the Tanzi family, involved in the Parmalat crisis

It has emerged that Parmatour was used not only for its declared objectives, but also for other purposes. This led to negative operating results. Repeated attempts were made to remedy this situation by means of various restructuring measures, the latest of which — the dismissal of 60 employees and an industrial regeneration plan which was to produce positive results over a three-year period — had been in place for a year. Following the declaration of insolvency and Parmalat's going into extraordinary administration, the plan was frozen.

Management of tourist activities differs radically from that of industrial activities, in that the latter can temporarily dissociate the production stage from the sales stage.

It is essentially a service industry, based on the vital need for mutual trust between supplier and customer, with due respect for minimum market conditions, failing which the company may be unable to remain on the market and pursue its activity.

The inability to remain on the market, even for short periods, causes the company's value to collapse, even in the event of it repositioning itself, which in turn jeopardises the various interests it represents.

In view of the above, will the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to enable this area of activity, in the broadest sense of the term, to have the best possible chance of being promoted and revitalised, rather than being stifled and virtually wiped out, as is currently happening?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not intend to take any position on the activities of Parmatour, which is involved in the financial crisis at Parmalat being investigated by the Italian judicial authorities.

One of the objectives of the Commission's recent Communication on ‘Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism’ (1) is to define a frame of reference to ensure the viability, continued growth, competitiveness and commercial success of the tourism sector. In this Communication, the Commission emphasises that open governance requires businesses to assume responsibility for conducting their operations in a manner that entails full implementation of appropriate corporate social responsibility practices for tourism value chain services and enterprises of any size or type.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 716 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/889 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/889

---

(2004/C 84 E/0982)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0831/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Radar installation on Pico do Areeiro — Environmental impact study

In the answer given on 5 March 2003 to my Written Question E-0157/03 (1) on the continuing use of Pico do Areeiro (Madeira) as a radar installation site, Mrs Wallström indicated that she would await the environmental impact study to be carried out at the request of the Portuguese authorities, before stating an opinion.

According to reports in Portugal an environmental impact study has apparently already been produced.

What, therefore, is the Commission's view on the study?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has examined the environmental impact study for the radar project in question on the site of Community importance ‘Maciço Montanhoso Central’ and the special protection zone ‘Maciço Montanhoso Oriental da Ilha da Madeira’, which includes a nesting site used by Pterodroma madeira.

According to the study, the main impact of the project will be the effects of the radar illumination on the birds' orientation. However, the study found that if certain measures were taken, such as reducing the strength of the beam and directing the beam towards the ground, the impact would be minimised. The study also found that both the nesting site and the flight corridors used by the birds were situated outside the radiation zone.

As an environmental impact study has been carried out for the project and has not indicated any significant impact on the abovementioned protected species, the Commission does not consider that the situation contravenes the relevant provisions of Community law and has therefore decided to close complaint 2002/5069 on the project in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 101.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/889 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/889

---

(2004/C 84 E/0983)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0832/04

by Anne Ferreira (PSE), Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) and Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Theatrical signers and audience members with hearing difficulties

Theatre performances may be translated for audience members with hearing problems by a signer. The option of having a signer present usually depends on the initiative of either the theatre, the theatre company, or specific arrangements requested by an audience with hearing difficulties. As a result, people with hearing difficulties are excluded from many cultural activities across the European Union. In addition, today, there are few trained theatrical signers.

What, if any, initiatives is the Commission taking to ensure that people with hearing difficulties might participate in cultural activities? What support does the Commission offer towards the training of theatrical signers?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The issue mentioned by the Honourable Member is generally an area of competence of the Member States. It is not the responsibility or within the competences of the Commission to recognise any language. The fact of the matter is that sign language varies across Member States and regions. Thus, recognition of any sign language is the responsibility of each Member State, and the Commission notes that a number of Member States have indeed recognised certain individual sign languages as official languages at national level.

However, the Commission is very sensitive to the needs of people for whom sign language is their first language and within a number of EU action programmes, such as the Lingua programme, the Commission has made grants available for projects which promote the teaching and learning of sign languages. All the EU events organised within the framework of the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 included interpretation in sign languages as well as spoken languages. For example, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) organised a conference entitled ‘eAccessibility by voice’, which was entirely subtitled through the use of stenotypists, and in part, automatically, subtitled through the prototype voice recognition technology developed by the JRC.

It is also important to recognise that it is necessary to be able to respond to the needs of a variety of different people, and in particular for those who are deaf or hard of hearing for whom sign language is not their first language. For this reason, the Commission tries to ensure easy access to written documents and for example tries, where feasible, to provide velotype or hearing loops at conferences. However, within the various framework programmes for research and technological development, the Commission has maintained a particular priority for research projects which help to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. Other examples of Commission action include its collaboration with the European Broadcasting Union and the Cenelec standard setting committee to bring advances in the area of the development and harmonisation of subtitling and also on the use of voice recognition to generate subtitling for conferences and television broadcasts. An interesting activity in this context is the VOICE project (http://voice.jrc.it/) of the Joint Research Centre. Moreover, the VOICE project has contributed to technological research and development through developing a ‘design for all’ approach based on subtitling, suitable for both able and disabled people. In this sense, subtitling could be an apt choice, worthwhile exploring further, for enhancing the participation of persons with hearing disabilities in cultural activities. The European Social Fund (ESF) is the main Community financial instrument in support of Member States policies in the fields of education, training and employment, with a global allocation of EUR 62,5 billion for the period 2000-2006 (EU15).

Training of theatrical signers can be supported in the framework of ESF co-funded programmes managed and implemented by national and regional authorities.

The outcomes of all these different actions can help to address the challenges related to deafness and hearing loss, and to boost the accessibility of a wide range of goods, services and possibly cultural activities to the benefit of all society.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/890 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/890

---

(2004/C 84 E/0984)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Nine years' imprisonment for supplying 0,5 grams of methadone in Russia

In 2003, the Moscow journalist Ulyana Belozerova, aged 32, was sentenced under Article 228(4) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to nine years' imprisonment in a high-security penal colony. She was alleged to have sold 0,5 grams of methadone. The accusation against her was based solely on the testimony of a young drug addict who claimed that Mrs Belozerova had placed a package containing the substance concerned in a sandpit at a kindergarten, thereby indicating her intention to sell it. The public prosecutor stressed that, because Mrs Belozerova had intended to pass on a dose of the substance in question to another drag addict, it was legitimate to equate this act with its consequences — public endangerment with criminal intent — and consequently to define it as murder aforethought. Mrs Ulyana Belozerova, who is a drag user, is one victim among hundreds of thousands of an undifferentiated campaign against drags in Russia, which results in people's being incarcerated for years or even decades and which involves large-scale repression of drug-users, while there is no consistent and effective policy on drags.

What information does the Commission have about this case and, in general, about the phenomenon of wholesale repressive measures against drag users in Russia and the consequences of this repressive policy? Does the Commission consider it legitimate to equate with murder aforethought an act consisting of giving or even selling 0,5 grams of methadone? More generally, does the Commission agree that this case — one example among thousands — is merely a symptom of the serious malfunctioning of the judicial system and the rale of law as a whole in the Russian Federation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission cannot comment on the specific case in question, which is an internal Russian judicial matter. In principle, a sentence on drug trafficking depends — also in Russia — on the quantity of drugs dealt with, whether the convicted person has been a persistent offender or not, previous convictions of the perpetrator, etc. It is, nonetheless, the view of the Commission that Russia should ensure the fair, nondiscriminatory and proportional application of the law, principles which constitute essential elements of the EU/Russia partnership. This view has been underlined — and will continue to be underlined — by the Commission in its political dialogue with Russia.

The Commission is aware of the need for Russia to improve the functioning and independence of its judiciary and of ongoing Russian efforts to reform the judicial system. The Commission is closely following and actively supporting these efforts via the Tacis programme of technical assistance.

In regard to Russia's efforts to combat drug abuse, the view of the Commission is that an effective antidrugs strategy must follow a balanced approach between supply and demand reduction measures, as for example outlined in the EU Action Plan on Drags 2000-2004. Particular priority should be given to preventive measures and the medical treatment of drag addicts in order to reintegrate them into society. This policy is reflected in dialogue with third countries, including Russia.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/891 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/891

---

(2004/C 84 E/0985)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Basis for economic growth

The Commission recently presented the first draft of the 2007-2013 financial perspective.

It bases its draft on the assumption of 4,5 % economic growth during that period.

| 1. | What is the basis for the Commission's assumption? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the basis for the Commission's assumption?

| 2. | How realistic is it? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How realistic is it?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

| 1. | The 4 1/2 % nominal growth rate refers to the EU27 (existing and new Member States + Bulgaria and Romania) and is composed of a 2 1/2 % volume increase and a 2 % inflation forecast. The inflation forecast is consistent with the European General Bank's (ECB) medium term stability target. Regarding the volume increase, while the EU27 economy is likely to grow by 2,5 % in real terms over the period 2007-2011, there is a sizeable growth differential between current and new Member States. From 2007 to 2011 EU15 real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to be 2,2 %, AC10 (10 new Member States) real GDP growth will be 4,1 %, with Bulgaria and Romania growing by 5,6 %.
  These 2007-2011 calculations are based on actual data up until 2002 and the short term forecasts (Autumn 2003) of Directorate-General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) until 2004. Thereafter, growth rates of GDP are calculated using DG ECFIN's production function methodology for calculating medium term trends. This implies that for the period 2005-2011, growth is assumed to be at its trend rate. In the framework used for these calculations, growth trends are calculated on the basis of projections on the growth rate of technical progress or Total Factor Productivity (TFP), the investment to output ratio, the employment rate and the growth rate of the population of working age. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The 4 1/2 % nominal growth rate refers to the EU27 (existing and new Member States + Bulgaria and Romania) and is composed of a 2 1/2 % volume increase and a 2 % inflation forecast. The inflation forecast is consistent with the European General Bank's (ECB) medium term stability target. Regarding the volume increase, while the EU27 economy is likely to grow by 2,5 % in real terms over the period 2007-2011, there is a sizeable growth differential between current and new Member States. From 2007 to 2011 EU15 real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to be 2,2 %, AC10 (10 new Member States) real GDP growth will be 4,1 %, with Bulgaria and Romania growing by 5,6 %.

These 2007-2011 calculations are based on actual data up until 2002 and the short term forecasts (Autumn 2003) of Directorate-General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) until 2004. Thereafter, growth rates of GDP are calculated using DG ECFIN's production function methodology for calculating medium term trends. This implies that for the period 2005-2011, growth is assumed to be at its trend rate. In the framework used for these calculations, growth trends are calculated on the basis of projections on the growth rate of technical progress or Total Factor Productivity (TFP), the investment to output ratio, the employment rate and the growth rate of the population of working age.

| 2. | Of course, projections over such a long period of time are subject to both downside and upside risks. For the current Member States there is the downside risk that TFP growth may actually not recover as predicted in the central scenario. TFP growth is currently low as it has been on a declining trend since the 1970s. A continuing improvement in labour market conditions, as observed since the mid 1990s, could also be questioned. For the new Member States, one can ask whether the high investment to GDP ratios will be sustained until 2011 and whether the employment rate will recover at the speed which is assumed in the central scenario.
  Under more pessimistic assumptions the EU economy (27 Member States) would only grow by 2,2 % in real terms (and 4,2 % in nominal terms) over 2007-2011. Growth would be 2,0 % in EU15, 3,6 % in AC10 and 5,0 % in Bulgaria and Romania.
  There are also upside risks. If labour market reform efforts continue then the Lisbon employment targets could be reached more closely in EU15. In a moderately optimistic scenario it is assumed that current unemployment trends will continue for those countries on a declining trend and there will be a trend reversal for countries with currently rising trends. In this case an employment rate of 68,5 % could be reached in 2011 and growth in EU15 could be 0,1 % higher over the period 2007-2011 and reach 2,3 % (AC10=4,1 and EU27=2,6). Since under these assumptions the Lisbon employment target would not have been reached by individual countries a more optimistic scenario assumes that all countries currently below 70 % could reach that target, while countries currently above 70 % would remain there. In this case the employment rate would be 71,1 % in 2011 and average growth in EU15 would rise to 2,7 % (1) (AC10=4,1 % and EU27=2,9 %). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Of course, projections over such a long period of time are subject to both downside and upside risks. For the current Member States there is the downside risk that TFP growth may actually not recover as predicted in the central scenario. TFP growth is currently low as it has been on a declining trend since the 1970s. A continuing improvement in labour market conditions, as observed since the mid 1990s, could also be questioned. For the new Member States, one can ask whether the high investment to GDP ratios will be sustained until 2011 and whether the employment rate will recover at the speed which is assumed in the central scenario.

Under more pessimistic assumptions the EU economy (27 Member States) would only grow by 2,2 % in real terms (and 4,2 % in nominal terms) over 2007-2011. Growth would be 2,0 % in EU15, 3,6 % in AC10 and 5,0 % in Bulgaria and Romania.

There are also upside risks. If labour market reform efforts continue then the Lisbon employment targets could be reached more closely in EU15. In a moderately optimistic scenario it is assumed that current unemployment trends will continue for those countries on a declining trend and there will be a trend reversal for countries with currently rising trends. In this case an employment rate of 68,5 % could be reached in 2011 and growth in EU15 could be 0,1 % higher over the period 2007-2011 and reach 2,3 % (AC10=4,1 and EU27=2,6). Since under these assumptions the Lisbon employment target would not have been reached by individual countries a more optimistic scenario assumes that all countries currently below 70 % could reach that target, while countries currently above 70 % would remain there. In this case the employment rate would be 71,1 % in 2011 and average growth in EU15 would rise to 2,7 % (1) (AC10=4,1 % and EU27=2,9 %).

---

(1)  It must be mentioned that this scenario is very optimistic, not necessarily because of the employment rate but in these simple calculations two partially offsetting effects are not taken into account. First, a higher percentage of the additional employment could be part time and the skill level of the newly created employment would be lower. Second employment would probably be created with a bias towards service sectors, thus the investment rate is likely to drop temporarily.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/892 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/892

---

(2004/C 84 E/0986)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0843/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Approval by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of the Ronchi south-Trieste high-speed rail link as part of Corridor 5

On 9 February 2004 the Commission answered the Written Question of 5 December 2003 (Written Question E-3873/03 (1)) asking whether the preliminary projects for the construction of a third motorway link (Quarto d'Altino-Sistiana) and the high-speed rail link between Ronchi South and Trieste complied with Directives 85/337/EEC (2), 97/ll/EC (3) and 90/313/EEC (4), and with the Habitat directive 92/43/EEC (5) and Directive 2001/42/EC (6) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

The Commission's answer stated that, since no authorisations have been issued by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region concerning the abovementioned projects, no breaches of the directives had been committed.

In its Decision No 3949 of 5 December 2004, the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region approved the preliminary project for the Ronchi-Trieste section of the new high-speed rail link between Venice and Trieste, thereby authorising the location for the works, despite the unfavourable opinions of all local authorities consulted, which were included in the decision (8 authorities plus 3 whose opinions were submitted after the deadline).

Hundreds of people have expressed their opposition to the high-speed rail link, including the criticisms of the environmental impact study and the planned new rail infrastructure contained in the studies submitted on 16 June 2003 by the Lega Ambiente, LIPU, WWF of Monfalcone, Legal Ambiente of Trieste, and WWF and Italian Nostra of Trieste, as well as the study by Ambienteltalia of May 2003 which was drawn up at the behest of various local authorities, including the municipality of Ronchi dei Legionari.

On 11 June 2003, despite the patent lack of information in the preliminary project for the rail link, the company Acegas, which is responsible for the water supply for Trieste, drew the attention of all local authorities to the fact that the project would pose a threat to water supply sources for Trieste and Monfalcone.

Will the Commission say whether it considers that the procedures provided for in Italy by Law 443 of 21 December 2001 and Legislative Decree 190/2002 on the selection and assessment of infrastructure works fully comply with the directives on the environment and the provision of adequate public information referred to above and whether it believes that the authorisation for the location of the work on the Ronchi south-Trieste rail link contained in Decision No 3949 of 5 December 2003 is in breach of the abovementioned Community provisions?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended (7), aims at ensuring that decisions to grant development consent are issued after having assessed the likely impact of the projects on the environment and after having given the public concerned (which is to be defined by the competent authorities of the Member States) the possibility to present observations. The results of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Directive must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

Moreover, the Directive does not imply that projects in relation to which negative opinions by consulted stakeholders, including local authorities, are expressed, and even in relation to which the environmental impact assessment has been ascertained to be significant, cannot be authorized. It only aims at making the competent authorities aware of the environmental implications of the projects which are submitted for consent. It is for them to decide whether or not to grant the consent, provided that the results of the consultations and the information gathered during the procedure are taken into consideration.

According to Article 1 (2), ‘development consent’ means: ‘the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project’. In the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member it does not appear, from the information supplied, that the favourable opinion granted by the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region on 5 December 2003 by deliberation No 3949 to a preliminary project represents a ‘development consent’ in the sense of the Directive. Therefore, it may be presumed that the procedure has not yet been concluded.

As regards Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (8), analogous considerations apply: to the extent that development consent to the project has not yet been issued, it is not possible to identify, at this stage, a violation of the provisions of this Directive.

Furthermore, the fact that negative opinions have been expressed by consulted stakeholders in relation to the preliminary high-speed train project Venezia-Trieste, section Ronchi-Trieste, is not, per se, an element contrary to Directive 85/337/EEC nor an obstacle for granting development consent, provided that the requirements laid down in this Directive are complied with. The information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to deduce, in this specific case, that any of the requirements imposed by the above mentioned Directives have not been complied with. The Commission remains, however, open to consider any possible further information provided by the Honourable Member on this specific case.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 867.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(4)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(5)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(6)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

(7)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.

(8)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/894 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/894

---

(2004/C 84 E/0987)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0844/04

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Aid to shipbuilding in breach of EU legislation

In recent months Finnish shipyards have lost out in several competitive bidding procedures to the Italian state-owned company Fincantieri, which has been able to offer customers markedly lower prices than its rivals. According to various avowed expert opinions, Italy is probably paying state aid to shipping companies that have their vessels built and registered in Italy.

Overseeing the internal market is one of the Commission's prime tasks. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that EU competition legislation is observed in the shipbuilding sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission's state aid department is actively following the shipbuilding sector, through the assessment of notified state aid cases and schemes, investigations linked to complaints and through investigations on its own initiatives.

The Commission is not aware of state aid to shipping companies that have their vessels built in Italy, with the exception of a type of aid that has been authorised by the Commission and which could, in principle, be provided by all Member States. This concerns contract related aid (1) for ships contracted until the end of 2000 and delivered before the end of 2003.

The Commission has currently one proceeding according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty open concerning state aid to Italian shipbuilding (2). This concerns a guarantee scheme to shipbuilding, but to the knowledge of the Commission no guarantees have yet been provided based on this scheme.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding, OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2)  OJ C 145, 21.6.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/895 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/895

---

(2004/C 84 E/0988)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0851/04

by Gianni Vattimo (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Animal welfare

Italian Legislative Decree No 533 of 30 December 1992 implemented Directive 91/629/EEC (1) laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, setting 31 December 2003 as the time limit for the use of rearing plants consisting of individual boxes or pens built before 1 January 1994.

In note No 600.10/24495/PA/4073 of 22 January 1999 the Directorate-General of the Department of Food, Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health of the Ministry of Health officially made it clear to Autonomous Regions and Provinces and to the agricultural sectors concerned that no derogations from this rule were admissible on the basis of current legislation.

The European Scientific Veterinary Committee considered this way of rearing livestock as particularly cruel, because of the immobilisation of the animals and the anaemia caused in calves raised for the production of ‘white meat’. In Italy — the third largest European producer after France and the Netherlands — around 470 000 of such animals are raised every year.

In note No 33533/50.03.62 of 14 July 2003 the Veneto Region's Director of the Animal Health and Hygiene Service dealing with livestock rearing and production issued a ‘guideline’ stressing that the envisaged sanctions (fines of between EUR 1 500 and 9 000 and a ban on trading for between one and three months in the event of a repeat infringement) should not be applied to farmers completing the production cycle for animals introduced before 31 December 2003 who have demonstrably started work to adapt structures which do not meet the requirements.

A note from the Lombardy Regional Councillor for Health dated 7 October 2003 referring to the ‘numerous requests’ forwarded by farmers' organisations, and in order to ‘avoid upsetting the stockbreeding industry’, considered the justifications offered valid and issued provisions for the completion of the rearing cycle by 31 August 2004 for farms which by 1 December 2003 had declared to the local health authority their intention to adapt the farm or to discontinue their activity by the end of the current breeding cycle. This derogation applies to an estimated 21 % of farms, or almost 800 holdings.

The Piedmont Region, which is just as important for this type of production, has not granted any derogations from national or European law. It informed farmers of the changes at the appropriate time, but in practice did not manage to avoid distortions of competition, in view of the decisions taken by neighbouring regions.

It is estimated that 100 % of plants in Germany had already been adapted two years ago, whilst the figure for Italy was barely 20 %.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Directive 91/629/EEC in the Italian Regions of Lombardy and the Veneto?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission has not previously been informed of any particular problems in the Italian regions of Veneto and Lombardia concerning the implementation of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. The Commission will therefore request information from the Italian authorities with regard to the alleged incomplete compliance with the Directive in the named regions.

---

(1)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 28.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/896 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/896

---

(2004/C 84 E/0989)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/04

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Security in Brussels

All major conurbations face the risk of a sudden loss of community facilities, including their electricity supply. It is well known that many are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Most are in addition prone to industrial accidents, either directly (where factories or industrial plants are sited within their territory) or indirectly (where they are sited nearby).

This is as true of Brussels (city and conurbation) as of anywhere else, and it is no secret that Brussels is high on the list of known — and even cited — terrorist targets. The governor of the administrative district of Brussels has recently expressed his concern: ‘We are not capable of drawing up emergency and response plans for the capital of Europe’ (statement published, notably, by the newspaper Le Soir on 23 February 2004 and relayed by Euronews).

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this statement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this statement?

| 2. | Had it been informed of this situation in parallel? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Had it been informed of this situation in parallel?

| 3. | What does it see as the consequences for its premises, staff and the families of its staff? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What does it see as the consequences for its premises, staff and the families of its staff?

| 4. | What contacts — regular or otherwise — has the Commission maintained with the Brussels and Belgian authorities since it first occupied premises in Brussels? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What contacts — regular or otherwise — has the Commission maintained with the Brussels and Belgian authorities since it first occupied premises in Brussels?

| 5. | Does the Commission have premises outside Brussels where the same security problem could arise? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission have premises outside Brussels where the same security problem could arise?

| 6. | If so, what is the state of affairs regarding these premises and regarding relations with the authorities concerned? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If so, what is the state of affairs regarding these premises and regarding relations with the authorities concerned?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission has not been officially informed of the particular statement referred to in the question but naturally noted the information reported in the Belgian press.

As Belgium is the host country for the Commission in Brussels, the Commission, in co-ordination with other EU Institutions in Brussels, is in sustained contact with the relevant authorities in the Belgian Government on security matters and this close cooperation will continue in order to help to maintain protection for persons and premises.

As the Honourable Member will understand, the maintenance of effective physical security for Commission staff, buildings and assets in Brussels and elsewhere requires that details of provisions are not given in public.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/896 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/896

---

(2004/C 84 E/0990)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Protecting traditional industries

At a recent meeting with representatives of the employees of Fosforeira Portuguesa in Espinho, Portugal, the questioner was informed of the problems the company is experiencing, which may jeopardise its viability in the future. The issue is competition, because of imports of matches from the accession countries and third countries, such as China.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| 1. | whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional industries, in particular the match industry, and of China's accession to the WTO; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional industries, in particular the match industry, and of China's accession to the WTO;

| 2. | what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Certain studies have been carried out by the Commission on the impact of enlargement on European Union industries although no specific studies have been carried out on the match industry. Similarly, no specific studies have been carried out on the impact on the match industry of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the case of unfair competition from the industry of the accession countries or from the Chinese industry, and in particular the non-respect of the WTO rules, the concerned European enterprise is invited to contact the Commission.

The Commission's general industrial policy is to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises and to help create an environment in which they can thrive. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the various work programmes and studies on the impact of enlargement which can be found at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme-package/index.htm or http://europa.eu.int/comm/arti-cles/enterprise/enlargement/studies.htm).

Moreover, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the second communication on industrial policy (1) adopted on 20 April 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2004)274.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/897 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/897

---

(2004/C 84 E/0991)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   European subsidies for the Flemish Community

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What were the findings of the auditing bodies with regard to the financial management and accountability of the Flemish Community in Belgium in respect of European subsidies, what recommendations were made, and how were these recommendations implemented by the Flemish Community? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What were the findings of the auditing bodies with regard to the financial management and accountability of the Flemish Community in Belgium in respect of European subsidies, what recommendations were made, and how were these recommendations implemented by the Flemish Community?

| 2. | How many investigations were made by the European Court of Auditors in relation to subsidies to the Flemish Community, within the framework of the Statement of Assurance, for each year of the period 1999 to 2003? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How many investigations were made by the European Court of Auditors in relation to subsidies to the Flemish Community, within the framework of the Statement of Assurance, for each year of the period 1999 to 2003?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

In accordance with normal procedures, the Commission departments responsible for Structural Funds have checked the systems put in place by the Flemish Community of Belgium to manage these funds. They have made a number of recommendations to the Flemish authorities in relation to various elements. The Flemish authorities have accepted the recommendations and the commitments to this effect are being followed up. The Directorate General for Regional Policy informed the Parliament of its findings for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in a report of 30 April 2003.

The European Court of Auditors has audited the current management and control systems for Structural Funds set up by the Flemish Community twice, in 2002 and 2003, for the years 2001 and 2002 respectively within the framework of the Statement of Assurance. The Honourable Member is referred to the Court's annual reports for 2001 and 2002 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002 and OJ C 286, 28.11.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/898 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/898

---

(2004/C 84 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   ECHO and Chechnya

Many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in the Chechnya region in Russia complain that the EU's humanitarian aid office ECHO does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently and that accordingly aid does not reach its destination. What criteria does ECHO apply to aid to Chechnya, and can the Commission accelerate the processing of aid applications from church and other organisations which provide humanitarian aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware that many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in Chechnya complain that the EU's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently.

ECHO, which is in charge of humanitarian aid to the Northern Caucasus, has never received such complaints. The Office is working with quick procedures which allow for a rapid signature of grant agreements and disbursement of funds.

The Commission adopts, in general, two funding decisions every year for the victims of the Chechnya conflict. These decisions are based on previous discussions with potential partners who are asked to submit concept papers where they explain which operations they would like to see funded by ECHO. ECHO then decides to retain a certain number of these on the basis of the needs, the experience of the non governmental organisation (NGO) and the coherence with ECHO'S strategy.

Once the decision has been adopted, and approximately one month before the start of the operation, ECHO asks the partner to submit a proposal. The proposal is then discussed in detail and a contract is signed in the following weeks. There is therefore no possibility to accelerate the processing of applications, which is already very short.

As for the destination of the aid, there are very strict mechanisms put in place by ECHO'S partners in order to ensure that the aid reaches the intended beneficiaries. Partners work on the basis of a list of beneficiaries, which is established after an assessment of the households' economy and needs. The aid is delivered directly to these beneficiaries, without an intermediary, which ensures that the people who are on the lists do receive what they are entitled to.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/899 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/899

---

(2004/C 84 E/0993)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0879/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Romano Prodi — new centre party

The press reports that the Commission President has expressed his interest in creating a ‘pro-European’ centre party within the European Parliament, and on 3 March, met the chairman of the Union for Democracy (UDF) and MEP François Bayrou, and the chairman of the EP Liberal Group, Graham Watson, discussed this issue on 3 March. The idea was apparently initially put forward by the Secretary-General of the Democratic Union of Catalonia (UDC), Josep Antoni Duran Lleida, at a meeting with the Commission President, where he said that his party was leaving the European People's Party and creating a new ‘Europeanist-oriented’ party. Romano Prodi apparently said that he was ‘favourable’ to building a new party, whose policies would be essentially European federalist, and whose embryo could be linking the French UDF, the Italian Margarita Party led by Francesco Rutelli MEP, and the UDC.

Graham Watson, after his meeting with the Commission President, said that ‘many people’ were interested in setting up a ‘powerful centre group’ leading to ‘pro-European policies in Brussels’.

The Commission:

| — | can it confirm these facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm these facts;

| — | how does it view its President's attitude, especially in the light of previous initiatives linked to Italian politics; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it view its President's attitude, especially in the light of previous initiatives linked to Italian politics;

| — | specifically, how does it view his attitude in light of the principles of the separation of powers, and the independence and general interest of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

specifically, how does it view his attitude in light of the principles of the separation of powers, and the independence and general interest of the Commission;

| — | does it believe that this initiative is compatible with his duties, in the light of the contents of Articles 211 and following of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it believe that this initiative is compatible with his duties, in the light of the contents of Articles 211 and following of the EC Treaty;

| — | how does it guarantee the independence of its political orientation and intervention, which legally, are the responsibility of its President? |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it guarantee the independence of its political orientation and intervention, which legally, are the responsibility of its President?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

As the Commission has pointed out on several occasions in reply to written or oral questions from Members of Parliament, its members are politicians carrying out political duties who retain the freedom to express their personal opinions on a fully independent basis and on their own responsibility, and to be members of a political party, on condition that they comply with the obligations associated with their post.

Against that background, Mr Romano Prodi has called publicly for all those who share a common vision of Europe and who are prepared to work for a common programme to unite under a single list. By so doing, and at a time in which the central importance of relations between the Commission and Parliament has been enhanced, Mr Prodi is following in the steps of all former Commission Presidents, all of whom took political steps to promote an increasingly united and stronger Europe which serves European citizens.

That being understood, President Prodi has confirmed that, as in the past, he will continue to devote all his energies to his duties as President of the Commission until his term of office expires.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/900 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/900

---

(2004/C 84 E/0994)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, Article 5

There is an ambiguity in the text of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1):

| — | does this article come into effect immediately or does the Commission first have to adopt the implementing rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

does this article come into effect immediately or does the Commission first have to adopt the implementing rules;

| — | if the Member States can restrict ‘fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands’, how are the Member States going to confirm that they wish to do so; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Member States can restrict ‘fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands’, how are the Member States going to confirm that they wish to do so;

| — | what is the definition, and who does the defining, of traditional fishing carried out by non-Azores vessels allowed within the 1 000 mile limit; |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the definition, and who does the defining, of traditional fishing carried out by non-Azores vessels allowed within the 1 000 mile limit;

| — | how, and in what direction, are these existing restrictions to be reviewed in the next three years? |
| --- | --- |

—

how, and in what direction, are these existing restrictions to be reviewed in the next three years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission's position on the questions raised by the Honourable Member is as follows:

| — | In accordance with Article 16 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (2) entered into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, i.e. on 14 November 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

In accordance with Article 16 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (2) entered into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, i.e. on 14 November 2003.

It follows that Article 5 entered into force on that date, since there is no stipulation to the contrary regarding that provision in the body of the Regulation.

| — | As follows from the previous point, that Article's entry into force was determined by the provision referred to (Article 16), independently of any adoption of implementing rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

As follows from the previous point, that Article's entry into force was determined by the provision referred to (Article 16), independently of any adoption of implementing rules.

| — | The restriction of fishing activity in the area defined in that provision is to be effected in accordance with the legislation of each Member State concerned. Within the framework of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, the latter are to provide the Commission with all the information permitting identification of the conditions for that Article's proper implementation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The restriction of fishing activity in the area defined in that provision is to be effected in accordance with the legislation of each Member State concerned. Within the framework of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, the latter are to provide the Commission with all the information permitting identification of the conditions for that Article's proper implementation.

| — | The identification of Community vessels that traditionally fish in those waters will be made, if necessary, by means of the implementing rules for that provision, following consultation of the interested parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

The identification of Community vessels that traditionally fish in those waters will be made, if necessary, by means of the implementing rules for that provision, following consultation of the interested parties.

| — | It is not possible at this stage to foresee the requirements for reviewing the current system of restriction. In any case, an evaluation of the framework created by that Article and of its impact will be carried out as part of the report provided for in paragraph 2 of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is not possible at this stage to foresee the requirements for reviewing the current system of restriction. In any case, an evaluation of the framework created by that Article and of its impact will be carried out as part of the report provided for in paragraph 2 of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/901 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/901

---

(2004/C 84 E/0995)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0886/04

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Road toll system

The proposal for a new EU road toll system for heavy goods vehicles came to nothing on account of disputes between the EU's peripheral states and transit states.

Strict Community rules ought to be adopted regarding road tolls for HGVs instead of numerous disparate practices, and the system should not leave any scope for interpretation.

It has been suggested in the media that the failure of the proposal may mean a delay of at least a year before any decision is taken. Yet when the new Member States join the EU on 1 May the situation on Europe's roads will only become more difficult unless rules enter into force this spring.

Now that the proposal has failed, how does the Commission intend to proceed in order as soon as possible to put an end to the present free-for-all regarding tolls?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member suggests in her written question, the common rules on charging HGVs for the use of road infrastructure (1) ought to be tightened. What is at stake is the smooth operation of the internal market.

At the Transport Council of 9 March 2004 the Member States failed to reach political agreement on the text of the future directive, due notably to differences of opinion on the principle of the Commission's proposal that revenue from charging must be allocated to the transport sector. However, it cannot be said, at this stage in the discussions, that the proposal has failed. With regard to the Council, the Irish Presidency and the Commission are doing all they can to secure political agreement on this dossier as soon as possible. Meanwhile, on 21 April 2004 Parliament adopted an opinion at first reading on the Commission's proposal.

---

(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/901 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/901

---

(2004/C 84 E/0996)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/04

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Slaughterhouses in Greece

In the conclusions of a report by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) on a mission it undertook to Greece in July 2003, reference is made to the fact that many Greek slaughterhouses still demonstrate serious shortcomings as regards compliance with EU requirements. Although the competent authorities have provided the Commission services with guarantees that they will complete planned actions, the FVO inspectors still found deficiencies in administrative structures, operational standards and in animal welfare and veterinary supervision.

Can the Commission say what action it will take, or has already taken, to improve the situation of slaughterhouses in Greece? Does this action include sanctions? If so, what are they, and when will it impose them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The draft report of the mission of July 2003 to Greece (Ref: 9176/2003) on the production and placing on the market of fresh meat was sent to the Greek authorities for comment on 21 August 2003.

In their response of 30 September to the draft report, the Greek authorities gave assurances that official approval to market meat in the Community had been withdrawn from the slaughterhouses and cutting plants where serious deficiencies had been observed during the mission. In addition, standard forms for the monitoring of establishments had been sent by the central competent authorities in Athens to all prefectures in Greece, requiring them to assess and report back on the situation in the red-meat sector.

In their letter of 17 February 2004 and accompanying action plan, in response to the final report of the mission, the Greek authorities mainly repeated the information given in reply to the draft report. The action plan did not contain anything to indicate that the report's recommendations were being addressed satisfactorily.

In the light of this and other findings during recent FVO missions in Greece, the Commission services, on 27 February 2004, sent an administrative infringement letter to the Greek authorities regarding understaffing in the services responsible for food safety and veterinary controls seeking a response, within a short deadline, to concerns expressed by the Commission services. The answer received from the Greek authorities does not respond satisfactorily to those concerns. Therefore, the Commission will now initiate infringement proceedings against Greece on these matters. A further administrative letter will shortly be sent to the Greek authorities regarding animal welfare concerns.

In addition, other food safety and veterinary matters on which satisfactory written assurances have been received from the Greek authorities will be the subject of further on-the-spot checks during FVO missions to Greece planned for later this year.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/902 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/902

---

(2004/C 84 E/0997)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0890/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Authorisation for flying instructors to give instruction

In my constituency of Northern Netherlands, I was recently approached about the fact that, with a view to achieving unification, agreements have apparently been concluded which make it impossible for self-employed flying instructors to continue to train learner-pilots for their pilot's licence examinations. Such instruction must now be given by a training establishment. As a result, a large number of instructors have lost their jobs, although the state had initially invested a lot of money in them. Unification concerns the implementation of aviation legislation and regulations, the Joint Aviation Requirements and the granting of aircrew authorisations.

| 1. | Can the Commission state whether it is true that this situation has come about as a result of European unification? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state whether it is true that this situation has come about as a result of European unification?

| 2. | Can it explain the need for it or where the added value arises? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it explain the need for it or where the added value arises?

| 3. | Does not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this instance? Or is the decision involved merely a matter for the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this instance? Or is the decision involved merely a matter for the Netherlands?

| 4. | Should not something be done about it, given that we are witnessing the effects of a centralised bureaucracy and a waste of capital resources? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should not something be done about it, given that we are witnessing the effects of a centralised bureaucracy and a waste of capital resources?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) referred to by the Honourable Member are harmonisation measures put in place by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the body representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of 38 European States. The measures concerning licences, JAR-FCL, deal with an area not yet covered by Community legislation. The Commission would point out that the measures provided for under the JARs are not directly applicable, but must be transposed into national legislation by the States concerned. If the measure referred to by the Honourable Member has been adopted, it is a measure under Dutch law transposing a JAR and not a provision of Community law.

In order to allow the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to develop technical rules on licences, the Commission will soon be proposing Community legislation extending the EASAs competence in this field. Once this legislation has been adopted, the EASA will be responsible for laying down technical rules which will serve as a basis for Community legislation on flight crew licences. Once adopted and implemented, the Community licensing legislation will replace the JAR-FCL and any national implementing provisions.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/903 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/903

---

(2004/C 84 E/0998)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal

The French multinational Valeo has informed workers that its Santo Tirso plant in Portugal, by word of mouth, is to be closed because of restructuring, threatening to throw the 330 workers out of a job. In fact, the company has already relocated machinery from the factory to Morocco, and cut the number of workers at the plant.

Valeo has factories, research and distribution centres in various European countries, and has two plants in Portugal (Santo Tirso and Viana do Castelo), devoted to producing electronic and link-up components.

Valeo employs over 68 000 workers in various countries world wide, it has 129 factories, 65 research centres and nine distribution centres; its profits in 2003 were in excess of nine thousand million euros.

| 1. | Has Valeo received any Community subsidy for its factories in Portugal and in the other countries of Europe? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has Valeo received any Community subsidy for its factories in Portugal and in the other countries of Europe?

| 2. | What measures does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the rights of Valeo's workers in Portugal, specifically the right to employment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the rights of Valeo's workers in Portugal, specifically the right to employment?

| 3. | What is the Commission's strategy to prevent the persistence of these relocations by multinationals, which are worsening unemployment and blocking the development of various Portuguese regions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the Commission's strategy to prevent the persistence of these relocations by multinationals, which are worsening unemployment and blocking the development of various Portuguese regions?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With regard to the first part of the question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the firm Valeo has not received any Community assistance under the European Social Fund or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its answer to Written Questions P-376/04 by Mrs Luciana Sbarbati (1) (in particular paragraphs 2 and 3) and P-0528/03 by Mrs Bastos (2) (in particular paragraph 2).

The Commission is aware of the phenomenon of business relocations in the European Union. This problem is related mainly to concerns about de-industrialisation, regarding which the Commission gave a preliminary response to the request of the 2003 European Council in its communication ‘Some Key Issues in Europe's Competitiveness — Towards an Integrated Approach’ (3). In fact, several Community policies help to create a favourable climate for businesses in Europe.

While continuing this work, the Commission also intends to carry out further analysis of the concept of de-industrialisation and to make specific proposals for action in its forthcoming communication on industrial policy.

---

(1)  See page 204.

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003.

(3)  COM(2003) 704 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/904 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/904

---

(2004/C 84 E/0999)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Costs of cross-border transfer payments

At the beginning of July 2003, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in euro entered into force, under which cross-border transfers within the euro zone must be treated in the same way as transfers within a Member State.

In a specific case where a transfer was made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais, the receiving bank imposed a charge for the transfer even though the IBA number and BI code were stated.

As this is a violation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001:

| 1. | are banks — particularly receiving banks — permitted to impose transfer charges of their own despite the new regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

are banks — particularly receiving banks — permitted to impose transfer charges of their own despite the new regulation?

| 2. | if not, can the amount be reclaimed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

if not, can the amount be reclaimed?

| 3. | what action can the Commission take to deal with such cases? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what action can the Commission take to deal with such cases?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, the charges levied by an institution in respect of cross-border electronic payment transactions in euro shall be the same as the charges levied by the same institution in respect of corresponding domestic payments in euro. This rule applies to electronic payment transactions (payments by card and withdrawals at cash dispensers) in euro up to EUR 12 500 from 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers from 1 July 2003.

This rule means that charges taken to the originator shall be the same as for a national payment. The same applies to charges taken to the beneficiary. In most countries, as a general rule, charges are not applied to the beneficiary. However, it may happen that, for specific operations (non standard payments like, for example, credit transfers where the originator has indicated that the beneficiary should take all the charges) the beneficiary is charged for a cross-border transfer. The charge may not be higher, however, than the corresponding national payment. The Commission issued an interpretative note on practical aspects of implementation of Article 3 of Regulation 2560/2001 and in particular the notion of ‘corresponding payments’ to eliminate any ambiguity in this respect and ensure a correct implementation of the Regulation.

The information given by the Honourable Member in his written question on the specific transfer made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais does not allow the Commission to conduct a more detailed analysis. Further information would be needed in this regard.

As regards the enforcement of the Regulation, national authorities should guarantee that it is applied adequately and consistently. Article 7 of the Regulation indicates that the compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. This does not prevent citizens from trying to get redress also from their bank directly.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/905 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/905

---

(2004/C 84 E/1000)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0895/04

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Dispute concerning port dues in Helsingborg

The Helsingborg port company and SweFerry AB have been in dispute over port dues since 1997. The issue was referred to the Commission in the same year. In 2002, I asked the Commission when it would state its position. Now, in the spring of 2004, the Commission has still not stated its position. When does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to complaints by two ferry-operators alleging an abuse of a dominant position by the Port of Helsingborg concerning excessive and discriminatory pricing. Since the previous written question E-3064/01 (1) by the Honourable Member on this matter, the Commission has progressed noticeably in its examination of these very complex cases.

In February 2003, the Commission informed the complainants in writing of its preliminary position, in respect of which the complainants have submitted their comments. The Port of Helsingborg has also presented its views on the Commission's preliminary position and on the comments of the complainants. In addition, the Commission has requested and obtained further data from the parties as well as from third parties. On the basis of all this information, the Commission is now preparing the final decision which is expected to be adopted before the end of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/906 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/906

---

(2004/C 84 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE), Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE), Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Marco Cappato (NI), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) and Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   Incorrect implementation in Italy of directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of laying hens

By means of Legislative Decree No 267 of 27 July 2003‘implementing directives 1999/74/EC and 2002/4/EC for the protection of laying hens and the registration of establishments keeping them’, published in Official Gazette No 219 of 20 September 2003, the Italian Government intended to transpose into its own legal system and implement the aforementioned directives.

Although the deadline set in Directive 1999/74/EC (‘not later than 1 January 2002’) expired some time ago, the transposition includes derogations which are illegal according to Community law and were pointed out by the Italian organisation LAV (Anti-vivisection league) and noted and recorded at meetings of the Italian Senate's committees on health and Community policies.

The illegal derogations include the following:

| — | further derogations from the ban on building and installing for the first time unenriched cages as of 1 January 2003, as laid down in the Directive, but without time limits if the cages were brought into use ‘before 31 December 2002’; |
| --- | --- |

—

further derogations from the ban on building and installing for the first time unenriched cages as of 1 January 2003, as laid down in the Directive, but without time limits if the cages were brought into use ‘before 31 December 2002’;

| — | in the 550 cm2 of unenriched cage area or 600 cm2 of enriched cage area which must be ‘useable without restriction’ the decree makes provision for the space to include an egg-collection trough up to 8 cm wide; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the 550 cm2 of unenriched cage area or 600 cm2 of enriched cage area which must be ‘useable without restriction’ the decree makes provision for the space to include an egg-collection trough up to 8 cm wide;

| — | authorised stocking density of 12 laying hens per m2 of usable area ‘for holdings which are using this system on the date the decree enters into force’, instead of 3 August 1999 as specified in the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

authorised stocking density of 12 laying hens per m2 of usable area ‘for holdings which are using this system on the date the decree enters into force’, instead of 3 August 1999 as specified in the Directive;

| — | the legislative decree makes the obligation to fit enriched cages ‘with suitable claw-shortening devices’ subject to the availability on the market of devices declared suitable by Community bodies. |
| --- | --- |

—

the legislative decree makes the obligation to fit enriched cages ‘with suitable claw-shortening devices’ subject to the availability on the market of devices declared suitable by Community bodies.

Pending the transposition into Italian law, which naturally leaves wide scope for unlawful derogations, battery cages continued to be built during 2003, for example in the municipality of Vivaro (PN).

Can the Commission say:

| — | how it intends to tackle the situation which has arisen and prevent intentional instances of abuse from benefiting from unlawful derogations; |
| --- | --- |

—

how it intends to tackle the situation which has arisen and prevent intentional instances of abuse from benefiting from unlawful derogations;

| — | whether it does not intend to introduce measures to remedy the effects of the derogations, so as to eliminate the advantages they may give those who exploit them compared with other Community producers; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not intend to introduce measures to remedy the effects of the derogations, so as to eliminate the advantages they may give those who exploit them compared with other Community producers;

| — | whether it does not intend to institute proceedings against the Italian Government for the abovementioned infringements? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not intend to institute proceedings against the Italian Government for the abovementioned infringements?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission reacted to the failure of Italy to communicate measures relating to the transposition of relevant legislation on time by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

This procedure was terminated after Italy communicated on 24 September 2003, details of Legislative Decree No 267 of 27 July 2003.

Before the adoption of the Legislative Decree, the Commission had become aware that, in several important respects, the text proposed by the Italian authorities did not correspond with the requirements of the amended Directive. The Commission intervened, by letter, with the Italian authorities but the text as adopted still incorporated the provisions which do not, in the opinion of the Commission, concord with the requirements of Community legislation.

The Commission, not having received a reply from the Italian authorities to its letter, will now consider the opening of further infringement proceedings.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/907 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/907

---

(2004/C 84 E/1002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0898/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   Intimidation of well-known Israeli conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of Palestinian territory by subjecting them to lengthy and repeated imprisonment

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that military service has traditionally been compulsory in Israel for men and women but in practice there have been broad exemptions for orthodox Jews, non-Jewish residents and people who report physical or mental problems, and up until 2002 there was a right to refuse to do military service on personal grounds of conscientious objection, just as in European countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that military service has traditionally been compulsory in Israel for men and women but in practice there have been broad exemptions for orthodox Jews, non-Jewish residents and people who report physical or mental problems, and up until 2002 there was a right to refuse to do military service on personal grounds of conscientious objection, just as in European countries?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that as a result of the long-term occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel and the growing number of clashes with the civilian population — following roadblocks, searches of residential areas and air attacks — since August 2002 the government has tightened up its policy and has begun to intimidate young men who have openly expressed their conscientious objection to the occupation by sending them to jail? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that as a result of the long-term occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel and the growing number of clashes with the civilian population — following roadblocks, searches of residential areas and air attacks — since August 2002 the government has tightened up its policy and has begun to intimidate young men who have openly expressed their conscientious objection to the occupation by sending them to jail?

| 3. | Does the Commission also realise that there are now signs that the growing group of refuseniks who oppose the occupation are being seen not as principled or unworldly pacifists but as political opponents, and whenever they have served their sentences they will be conscripted again under the slogan if you won't serve for love, do it out of fear, and if they refuse again they will have to return to prison? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission also realise that there are now signs that the growing group of refuseniks who oppose the occupation are being seen not as principled or unworldly pacifists but as political opponents, and whenever they have served their sentences they will be conscripted again under the slogan if you won't serve for love, do it out of fear, and if they refuse again they will have to return to prison?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that the prison sentences for carrying out orders found to be unlawful or reckless initiatives that lead to civilian deaths are often only one month, i.e. very short in relation to the one to two year sentences imposed for each refusal to carry out military service? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that the prison sentences for carrying out orders found to be unlawful or reckless initiatives that lead to civilian deaths are often only one month, i.e. very short in relation to the one to two year sentences imposed for each refusal to carry out military service?

| 5. | Is the Commission prepared to use the EU-Israel association agreement to find ways of tackling this ever greater hardening of Israeli society and hence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to prevent the Israeli government from imposing ever stricter and possibly even endless sentences on conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission prepared to use the EU-Israel association agreement to find ways of tackling this ever greater hardening of Israeli society and hence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to prevent the Israeli government from imposing ever stricter and possibly even endless sentences on conscientious objectors who oppose the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission is attentively monitoring what happens to Israeli conscientious objectors and reservists who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories.

The Commission Delegation in Tel Aviv keeps abreast of developments and, in fact, recently received a visit by representatives of the group for Israeli conscientious objectors, at their request.

While careful to avoid unwarranted interference in internal Israeli legislative matters, the Commission intends to continue monitoring developments, as it would monitor any other human-rights issue, and, where necessary, to raise the matter in the appropriate forum. Human-rights issues relating to Israel are usually discussed as part of the political dialogue within the Association Council, under the guidance of the EU Presidency and the Israeli Foreign Minister.

The next meeting of the Association Council with Israel is due to take place in the winter, in late 2004 or early 2005.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/908 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/908

---

(2004/C 84 E/1003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0903/04

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Termination of European Documentation Centres' (EDCs) preferential subscription to the EC/EU Official Journal (printed edition)

The rights and obligations of the EDCs are set out in the written agreements last concluded in 1996 between the then DG X and the individual EDCs. Article 2 of the agreement states that the Commission shall supply publications of the European Union's institutions to the EDCs on a regular basis and free of charge.

Unfortunately, since 1 January 2004 and 1 May 2003 respectively, the paper editions of the Official Journal of the EU and COM documents have no longer been supplied to the EDCs under the free subscription system. As the sole official source of legislation, the Official Journal of the EU is legally binding only in its paper edition. There are discrepancies between the printed and electronic versions. It is, therefore, of great importance for EDC users. It would be desirable if the 55 European Documentation Centres in Germany continued to receive it free of charge.

The Commission requires the EDCs to maintain archives. Having to research and print electronic EU documents for users would entail a major additional input of staff and financial resources and would require checks to see whether the EDCs have the necessary technology available for that purpose.

The Commission has thus far not granted the EDCs any financial aid. Would it be possible, in the public interest and in support of transparency, to continue to supply the important publications free of charge?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member for the adequate distribution of materials to the European Documentation Centres (EDCs) and thanks him for his question which allows the Commission to clarify several points.

The decision to end the EDCs' preferential subscription to the paper edition of the L & C series of the Official Journal (OJ) was taken by the Publications Office, whose Management Committee is composed of the Secretaries-General of all European Institutions. In view of the high cost of distribution of the paper edition of the OJ, the institutions represented in the Management Committee of the Publications Office have adopted a strategy encouraging distribution of the OJ on CD-ROM.

The Publications Office decided, with effect from 2000, to provide the EDCs and other information relays with the OJ L & C series on CD-ROM free of charge. The EDCs and information relays were given the option of subscribing to the paper edition of the OJ at a preferential rate, on a transitional basis.

In 2004, all EDCs receive the OJ L & C CD-ROM free of charge. This distribution meets the obligation stipulated in Article 2 of the agreement mentioned by the Honourable Member which states ‘that the Commission shall supply publications of the European Union's institutions to the EDCs on a regular basis and free of charge’. The CD-ROM edition of the OJ is of demonstrably high quality and is easily archived.

EDCs and information relays can also access documents in the OJ L & C series section of the EUR-Lex Internet portal on the day of their publication. Access to documents via the EUR-Lex site has become very widespread for the general public as well as professional and academic circles.

EDCs have also continued to have free access to CELEX, the database on Community law, which will become generally available and free of charge from 1 July 2004 onwards.

The question of the legal validity of information in electronic form, raised by the Honourable Member, should only arise in the event of an action or proceedings before a court. Such cases do not fall within the ambit of EDCs.

As regards the technology required by EDCs, access to the OJ L & C CD-ROM requires a CD-ROM drive and daily consultation via the EUR-Lex site requires an Internet connection. The Commission would expect EDCs to have such facilities.

As the Commission is ceasing to produce paper editions of certain categories of documents, such as COM and SEC documents, it is endeavouring to improve the electronic provision of such materials in cooperation with the Publications Office. The Commission maintains regular contacts with EDCs and information relays concerning their needs.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/909 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/909

---

(2004/C 84 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   The Threshold for British teachers in the European Schools

Further to my questions E-2583/03 (1) and E-3295/03 (2) and the Commission's answers, what legal advice has the Commission received on the compatibility of the UK's contract with Art 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention?

In Case C-6/89, Commission v Belgium (1990), ECR 1-1595, the Commission acted against the Belgian Government for flouting Article 12 of the European Schools Statute. Will the Commission consider similar proceedings against the Government of the UK for failure to grant eligibility for the Threshold?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is carefully examining the issue of accessibility of the United Kingdom Threshold assessment system to British teachers employed by the United Kingdom Government with United Kingdom contracts but detached to the European schools. Consideration of legal issues in particular is on-going.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 180.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 252.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/910 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/910

---

(2004/C 84 E/1005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/04

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Safeguarding the profession of optometrist

The profession of optometrist exists in a number of Member States and access to the profession is obtained by taking a degree in the subject.

Optometry is a profession in its own right, which does not encroach on that of ophthalmology since measurement of eyesight is a functional investigation, not a medical procedure.

Optometrists have a higher level of professional qualification than opticians and they ensure protection for people's eyesight by means of prevention, rehabilitation and increasing visual efficiency.

Can the Commission say what has been done to encourage the Italian government to enable Italian optometrists to be recognised as having specific skills and professional status in the same way as their European colleagues?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Honourable Member raises the question of what has been done by the Commission to encourage the Italian government to regulate the profession of optometrist in Italy in order to enable Italian optometrists to be recognised as having specific skills and professional status in the same way as in other Member States.

Under the EC Treaty, qualification and training requirements remain the primary responsibility of the Member States. Some minimum co-ordinated training requirements have been adopted at Community level for some of the main health professions, e.g. doctors (ophthalmologists) which fall under Directive 93/16/EEC (1), but most professions, including that of optometrist, are not subject to any such requirements.

In the case of optometrists, Directive 89/48/EEC (2) on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas and Directive 92/51/EEC (3) on a second general system apply, but only where the profession is regulated in the host Member State. These directives do not regulate the exercise of the activities of the profession in question on a national level.

Furthermore, the profession of optometrist is not regulated in all Member States and the professional activity may be reserved to other professions. In this context, the European Court of Justice has confirmed in its decision of 3 October 1990 (C-61/89 Bouchoucha) that Article 43 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from restricting an activity ancillary to medicine exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine.

As the primary interest and responsibility in this area lies with Member States who decide on what action to take in accordance with their specific public health and other policies, the Commission may not intervene in a purely internal matter.

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(2)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(3)  Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/911 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/911

---

(2004/C 84 E/1006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   To Serve and Protect — Netherlands Railways

The Dutch newspaper Het Parool reported on 11 March 2004 that, as of 1 April 2004, the security firm To Serve and Protect is to lose its contract to a competing firm. Using unorthodox methods, To Serve and Protect has achieved outstanding results in making Amsterdam's railway stations safe, to the complete satisfaction of all parties.

Netherlands Railways (NS), which has employed it hitherto, says that To Serve and Protect is no longer eligible because it does not comply with European public procurement criteria. The firm's excessively small size is a particular problem according to the NS. The latter's spokesman says that a business must have a turnover of at least EUR 4,5 million per annum and employ at least 400 staff.

| 1. | If a firm is doing a good job and is competitive but too small, surely this last point cannot be grounds for debarring it from bidding for a contract? What does the Commission think about this? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If a firm is doing a good job and is competitive but too small, surely this last point cannot be grounds for debarring it from bidding for a contract? What does the Commission think about this?

| 2. | What is the true state of affairs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the true state of affairs?

| 3. | Can the Commission appreciate that such reports give newspaper-readers a negative impression of Europe and makes them angry at Europe? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission appreciate that such reports give newspaper-readers a negative impression of Europe and makes them angry at Europe?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The EU rules on public procurement do not include an obligation to exclude companies from participating in invitations to tender because of their size. However, the awarding bodies are permitted to require participants in the procedures for the award of contracts to have the technical, economic and financial capacity necessary for the performance of the contract in question, such as a minimum turnover and/or a minimum number of employees. In order to avoid negative consequences for small companies, under EU rules groups of companies are allowed to tender. In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member it was Netherlands Railways (NS) which considered that a minimum annual turnover of EUR 4,5 million and a staff of at least 400 people was necessary to carry out the contract in question.

The Commission is aware of the negative impact of information which does not give enough explanation in order to be understood and correctly assessed. It therefore regrets the biased way in which information has been given to the public on this subject.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/911 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/911

---

(2004/C 84 E/1007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0910/04

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Aid for olive production; common organisation of the market in olives

The common organisation of the market in olives provides for olive production to receive aid as a matter of course. In what form is it provided: per tree, hectare or litre?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Under the common market organisation for olive oil production aid is granted to growers for the oil actually produced. The rate for the 1998/99 to 2003/04 marketing years has been EUR 132,25/100 kg. The maximum quantity of oil on which it can be granted is 1777261 tonnes per marketing year. This guaranteed maximum is split between the producing Member States (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) and if a Member's State guaranteed national quantity is exceeded the aid rate is reduced in proportion.

Member States can allocate part of their guaranteed national quantity and of the production aid to support for table olives.

The legal provisions on applications for, payment of, and checks on olive oil and table olive production aid are set by Regulation (EC) No 2366/1998 (1). The national provisions on granting of aid for table olives are to be found in Decisions 2001/670/EC (2) (Portugal), 2001/658/EC (3) (Italy), 2001/650/EC (4) (Spain) and 2001/649/EC (5) (Greece).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years, OJ L 293, 31.10.1998.

(2)  2001/670/EC: Commission Decision of 10 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Portugal, OJ L 235, 4.9.2001.

(3)  2001/658/EC: Commission Decision of 10 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Italy, OJ L 231, 29.8.2001.

(4)  2001/650/EC: Commission Decision of 9 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Spain, OJ L 229, 25.8.2001.

(5)  2001/650/EC: Commission Decision of 9 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Greece, OJ L 229, 25.8.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/912 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/912

---

(2004/C 84 E/1008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Directive 2001/83/EC and Braille requirements

Has the Commission fully assessed the implications and costs involved in the requirement that all medicine packaging must include Braille, as specified in Directive 2001/83/EC (1)?

Has the Commission considered other options such as:

| — | the provision, at point of sale, of clear self-adhesive Braille labels; |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision, at point of sale, of clear self-adhesive Braille labels;

| — | the availability, at point of sale, of leaflets printed in Braille, which may be retained in the home with the product in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

the availability, at point of sale, of leaflets printed in Braille, which may be retained in the home with the product in question;

| — | the provision, on demand, of reusable containers printed in Braille, in which a product may be kept? |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision, on demand, of reusable containers printed in Braille, in which a product may be kept?

Will the Commission consider convening a meeting of relevant stakeholders to ensure that this requirement is met in the most appropriate manner?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The requirement to give information on a medicinal product in Braille is included in the revision of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as agreed by the Parliament and the Council (December 2003-March 2004).

During the discussions for the review of the above-mentioned Directive, Members of the Parliament pointed out the need to give basic information of medicinal products in Braille as well. As a consequence, the Council took on board the arguments that partially sighted or blind patients should be in a position to recognise the medicinal product.

The new provision (Article 56(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC) does not specify in which way the information must be given, if the information has to be on the container itself or for example on a ‘self-adhesive Braille label’. Different possibilities could be retained.

Different options could also be considered, in particular, concerning the availability at point of sale or by request to the distributor of a leaflet in Braille.

The Commission will discuss with the Member States in the context of the Pharmaceutical Committee how to implement this requirement in the most appropriate manner. Stakeholders will be consulted.

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/913 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/913

---

(2004/C 84 E/1009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Directive 2001/83/EC and ‘borderline products’

Will the Commission clarify what steps it has taken to address the issue of ‘borderline products’, such as foods, cosmetics and medical devices, within Directive 2001/83/EC (1)?

When will the Commission hold the stakeholders' meeting announced during the second reading debate and will a list of invitees be announced before the event?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Honourable Member wonders what steps the Commission has taken to address the implications of the new Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (‘borderline products’) and when the Commission will hold a stakeholders' meeting as announced during the second reading debate in the Parliament.

The Commission's opinion is that this provision will clarify, from a legal point of view, the situation of certain borderline products for which there is currently uncertainty regarding which regulatory system should be applied. This opinion has been shared by the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission has already started to prepare the organisation of a meeting with all interested parties in order to discuss practical implementation issues linked to this new provision.

The meeting will take place presumably in June 2004. Stakeholders will be invited to the meeting (different trade associations) as well as representatives of all Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/914 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/914

---

(2004/C 84 E/1010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme

Can the Commission indicate why the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme has been designed in such a way that substitution of primary carbon fuels by non-biomass alternatives derived from waste materials are not accorded either credit or neutrality within the terms of the scheme but are instead treated as though they are primary carbon fuels, thereby restricting their potential use and the likelihood that they will be moved up the waste hierarchy so as to facilitate energy recovery from them?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The atmosphere makes no distinction how carbon emissions arise. When installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) burn forms of waste, the resulting emissions are treated in the same way as emissions from a fossil fuel.

However, the incentive for operators to switch to fuels with low carbon content is inherent to any Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions trading scheme. Therefore, as long as a waste fuel has a lower carbon content than a primary carbon fuel there will be an incentive to fuel-switch, and thus such waste fuels will move up the waste hierarchy.

---

(1)  OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/914 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/914

---

(2004/C 84 E/1011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/04

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Medical treatment for haemophilia sufferers

Haemophilia, a hereditary and congenital disease characterised by uncontrolled bleeding, is still incurable despite the enormous progress of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Tailored drugs for alleviating its effects on sufferers are extremely expensive, and the conditions of those drugs' use are not the same across the EU Member States.

This disease causes severe physical pain from the first year of age, and leads to irreversible paralysis if it is no treated at a tender age with the above-mentioned drugs.

Can the Commission state whether, after enlargement, the new Member States will have sufficient stocks of the drugs concerned to meet needs, or whether there will be significant variations in their use?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology are helping to improve the treatment of many diseases and the latest progress is encouraging. This is the case for medicinal products used in the treatment of haemophilia.

In principle, the Commission does not see a particular reason for concern in relation to the accessibility to medicinal products for the treatment of this disease after enlargement. On the contrary, in accordance with the European centralised system for the authorisation of medicinal products, as established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1), medicinal products authorised on this basis will be accessible to the market in the new Member States under the same conditions of use as in the rest of the EU. The way in which haemophilia is treated in the Member States is a national responsibility and therefore there could be variations in treatment practice.

---

(1)  OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/915 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/915

---

(2004/C 84 E/1012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/04

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Health and safety in the European institutions

In his reply to Written Question E-2641/99 (1), Mr Kinnock said that ‘national health and safety legislation does not apply to European institutions’ but that ‘European institutions respect Community law in this area’.

Would the Commission indicate if a formal decision was taken by the Commission to apply Community health and safety law to its staff and buildings?

Has the Commission had carried out an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, as provided for by Article 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2)? What were the principal findings of that risk assessment?

Has the Commission developed a coherent overall prevention policy, as provided for by Article 6(2)(g) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC? What is the principal thrust of that policy?

Does the Commission keep a register of occupational accidents which have resulted in a worker being unfit for work for more than three working days, as provided for by Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC?

What are the occupational accident statistics for the last three years? Could the Commission also give separate statistics for Luxembourg and Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

As the Commission reported in its reply to written question E-2641/99 by Mrs Lynne, the European Institutions, as employers, respect the safety and health requirements as they are laid down in Directive 89/391/EEC (3) and in various subsequent Directives.

As a result of the administrative reforms undertaken by the Commission the new Staff Regulations, which enter into force on 1 May 2004, establish in Article 1(e) (2): ‘Officials in active employment shall be accorded working conditions complying with appropriate health and safety standards at least equivalent to the minimum requirements applicable under measures adopted in these areas pursuant to the Treaties.’

In line with, and consequent to, this explicit obligation the Commission is drawing up new internal health and safety arrangements to ensure protection from hazards at work as a basic element in an overall policy which includes clear emphasis on risk prevention.

An action plan will follow which will develop this policy that is based on evaluation and risk assessment of the work place. A pilot exercise was carried out in 2002 and analysis of results indicates the need to focus on ergonomic issues.

The Commission keeps a list of occupational accidents which result in a worker being unfit for work for more, as well as for less, than three working days. For the years 2001-2003 there were respectively 93, 142 and 144 recorded accidents at work in the Commission in Brussels and 22, 29 and 34 in Luxembourg.

---

(1)  OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 32.

(2)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(3)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/916 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/916

---

(2004/C 84 E/1013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/04

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Practice of ‘prototypes’ at Eur-OP

Throughout the Eurostat affair the Commission has repeatedly stated that the offending activities dated from earlier mandates. However, a certain practice the result of which is, at best, that competition is artificially limited or, at worst, that it is the Publications Office which awards the contracts is still current at the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Eur-OP) in Luxembourg, the reputation of which also happens to have been sullied by the Eurostat affair. It is the ‘prototype’ practice, whereby, in the context of a large-scale project with a major IT component, a firm is chosen to design a prototype which lays down the choice of technology, thus restricting the number of firms able to respond to the call for tender.

This raises many questions:

| 1. | Is this practice in line with the financial regulation and the directives on public contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is this practice in line with the financial regulation and the directives on public contracts?

| 2. | Who chooses the firm that designs the prototype and what procedures are used? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Who chooses the firm that designs the prototype and what procedures are used?

| 3. | Can the Commission state the number and scale of the projects that have been subject to this practice since 1999? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission state the number and scale of the projects that have been subject to this practice since 1999?

| 4. | Can the Commission say which firms and technologies were involved? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission say which firms and technologies were involved?

| 5. | Can the Commission say whether these firms include companies that already have long-term contracts with Eur-OP? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the Commission say whether these firms include companies that already have long-term contracts with Eur-OP?

| 6. | Does the Commission intend to refer this practice to OLAF for investigation? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does the Commission intend to refer this practice to OLAF for investigation?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can provide the following answers to the Honourable Member's questions:

| 1. and 2. | The development of prototypes is an approach used in the building of certain IT applications in order to analyse:






  — | the feasibility of the organisational solutions to be applied; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The development of prototypes is an approach used in the building of certain IT applications in order to analyse:

—

the feasibility of the organisational solutions to be applied;

| — | the suitability of a technical solution, in particular in the case of new technologies not yet used by the institutions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the suitability of a technical solution, in particular in the case of new technologies not yet used by the institutions;

| — | the acceptability of the IT application recommended by the users. |
| --- | --- |

—

the acceptability of the IT application recommended by the users.

Contracts awarded by the Publications Office within this framework must comply with the Financial Regulation and all the rules governing public procurement.

| 3. and 4. | Five prototypes have been produced as part of IT developments carried out by the Office since 1999:






  A. | SEI-JOS
  Subject: Development of the computerised publishing system for the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.
  Developing company: European Dynamics.
  Contract arrangements: Specific contract (1515) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
  Duration of contract: 1.3.1998-28.2.2005.
  Amount of contract: EUR 987 000. Cost of prototype: EUR 39 150.
  IT tools used: Oracle technology, in particular the database system and the workflow tool.
  Performance: The specific contract concluded after the invitation to tender provided for the development of a prototype. The contract stipulated that it would be terminated if the prototype was not accepted. The prototype was found to be acceptable and the system was developed and commissioned. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Five prototypes have been produced as part of IT developments carried out by the Office since 1999:

A.

SEI-JOS

Subject: Development of the computerised publishing system for the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.

Developing company: European Dynamics.

Contract arrangements: Specific contract (1515) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Duration of contract: 1.3.1998-28.2.2005.

Amount of contract: EUR 987 000. Cost of prototype: EUR 39 150.

IT tools used: Oracle technology, in particular the database system and the workflow tool.

Performance: The specific contract concluded after the invitation to tender provided for the development of a prototype. The contract stipulated that it would be terminated if the prototype was not accepted. The prototype was found to be acceptable and the system was developed and commissioned.

| B. | SEI-Suiprod
  Subject: Development of a production monitoring tool to be used in connection with work such as the Official Journal of the European Union, other publications and multimedia productions.
  Developing company: Trasys.
  Contract arrangements: Framework contract for IT services (5011, lot E6) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union ...
  Duration of contract: 15.8.1997-14.8.2002.
  Amount of contract: EUR 3 632 025. Cost of prototype: EUR 38 250.
  IT tools used: Expeditor, Lotus Notes and TeamWare.
  Performance: After the evaluation of the software packages available on the market, the tools listed at 2.6 were selected. Prototypes were developed with these tools. On the basis of the results of the prototypes produced, the Office opted for Expeditor for the development of the application. |
| --- | --- |

B.

SEI-Suiprod

Subject: Development of a production monitoring tool to be used in connection with work such as the Official Journal of the European Union, other publications and multimedia productions.

Developing company: Trasys.

Contract arrangements: Framework contract for IT services (5011, lot E6) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union ...

Duration of contract: 15.8.1997-14.8.2002.

Amount of contract: EUR 3 632 025. Cost of prototype: EUR 38 250.

IT tools used: Expeditor, Lotus Notes and TeamWare.

Performance: After the evaluation of the software packages available on the market, the tools listed at 2.6 were selected. Prototypes were developed with these tools. On the basis of the results of the prototypes produced, the Office opted for Expeditor for the development of the application.

| C. | PLAN-JO
  Subject: System for monitoring production of the Official Journal of the European Union.
  Developing company: TRW ISCS.
  Contract arrangements: Specific contract (2068) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the principal development and direct treaty for the evaluation of Livelink ...
  Duration of contract: 31.7.2002-30.7.2007.
  Cost of the evaluation: EUR 13 530.
  IT tools used: Livelink.
  Performance: The Office had an evaluation made of the Livelink software. An invitation to tender was then published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the PLAN-JO project. |
| --- | --- |

C.

PLAN-JO

Subject: System for monitoring production of the Official Journal of the European Union.

Developing company: TRW ISCS.

Contract arrangements: Specific contract (2068) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the principal development and direct treaty for the evaluation of Livelink ...

Duration of contract: 31.7.2002-30.7.2007.

Cost of the evaluation: EUR 13 530.

IT tools used: Livelink.

Performance: The Office had an evaluation made of the Livelink software. An invitation to tender was then published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the PLAN-JO project.

| D. | EU-Bookshop
  Subject: EU-Bookshop on-line documentary management and dissemination system.
  Developing company: Intrasoft (principal development) and EverTeam (prototype and technical assistance).
  Contract arrangements: Specific contract (6106) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the principal development and direct treaty for the production of the Everteam prototype ...
  Duration of contract: 12.5.2003-11.5.2007. Duration of the direct treaty: 17.6.2002-17.8.2002.
  Cost of prototype: EUR 32 180.
  IT tools used: EverSuite.
  Performance: The Office had a prototype produced on the basis of the EverSuite software package. An invitation to tender was then published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the EU-Bookshop project. |
| --- | --- |

D.

EU-Bookshop

Subject: EU-Bookshop on-line documentary management and dissemination system.

Developing company: Intrasoft (principal development) and EverTeam (prototype and technical assistance).

Contract arrangements: Specific contract (6106) concluded after an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the principal development and direct treaty for the production of the Everteam prototype ...

Duration of contract: 12.5.2003-11.5.2007. Duration of the direct treaty: 17.6.2002-17.8.2002.

Cost of prototype: EUR 32 180.

IT tools used: EverSuite.

Performance: The Office had a prototype produced on the basis of the EverSuite software package. An invitation to tender was then published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the EU-Bookshop project.

| E. | EUR-Lex/Celex
  Subject: Merger of the EUR-Lex and Celex databases.
  Developing companies: Trasys/Sword, and EverTeam as subcontractor.
  Contract arrangements: Contracts (6203 and 6204) concluded on the basis of the IT Directorate framework contract (DI/02432).
  Duration of the contracts: contract 6203: 26.5.2003-31.12.2003; contract 6204: 2.3.2004-31.12.2004.
  Cost: contract 6203: EUR 387 793; contract 6204: EUR 385 410.
  IT tools used: EverSuite.
  Performance: This project is currently in the second of the three planned stages of development. The purpose of the first stage was to identify the functions of the new application. |
| --- | --- |

E.

EUR-Lex/Celex

Subject: Merger of the EUR-Lex and Celex databases.

Developing companies: Trasys/Sword, and EverTeam as subcontractor.

Contract arrangements: Contracts (6203 and 6204) concluded on the basis of the IT Directorate framework contract (DI/02432).

Duration of the contracts: contract 6203: 26.5.2003-31.12.2003; contract 6204: 2.3.2004-31.12.2004.

Cost: contract 6203: EUR 387 793; contract 6204: EUR 385 410.

IT tools used: EverSuite.

Performance: This project is currently in the second of the three planned stages of development. The purpose of the first stage was to identify the functions of the new application.

| 5. | A list of the contracts with the companies mentioned, other than those referred to in the reply to question 4 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

5.

A list of the contracts with the companies mentioned, other than those referred to in the reply to question 4 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

| 6. | In response to the request from the Commissioner responsible for education and culture, the Publications Office had an audit carried out into its contracts over the period 1999 to July 2003. The conclusions of this audit were set out in a report produced in November 2003 which found no irregularity. A copy of the final report was sent in November 2003 to the members of the Office's Management Committee, which includes the Secretary-General of Parliament, and to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). |
| --- | --- |

6.

In response to the request from the Commissioner responsible for education and culture, the Publications Office had an audit carried out into its contracts over the period 1999 to July 2003. The conclusions of this audit were set out in a report produced in November 2003 which found no irregularity. A copy of the final report was sent in November 2003 to the members of the Office's Management Committee, which includes the Secretary-General of Parliament, and to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that OLAF is currently checking whether any irregularities occurred in the award of public contracts by the Office.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/918 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/918

---

(2004/C 84 E/1014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Standards on portable liquid oxygen devices

In its answer of 15 February 2002 to my question E-3462/01 (1), the Commission stated that standards for portable liquid oxygen devices, including connectors, were being developed by the European Committee on Standardisation (CEN), following a mandate given by the Commission on the basis of Directive 93/42/EEC (2). The adoption of these standards was expected for the second half of 2003.

| 1. | Can the Commission indicate whether the CEN has fulfilled the mandate entrusted to it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission indicate whether the CEN has fulfilled the mandate entrusted to it?

| 2. | If so, when were these standards adopted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, when were these standards adopted?

| 3. | Where can they be accessed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where can they be accessed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Standard for portable liquid oxygen devices, including connectors (EN ISO 18777), is now at public enquiry stage in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). The enquiry was closed on 11 February 2004. CEN will review the comments received. The Standard will be put to formal vote before March 2005.

---

(1)  OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 234.

(2)  OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/919 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/919

---

(2004/C 84 E/1015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Contribution to EU economy by fisheries

Has the Commission any information about the relative contributions to the EU's economy of recreational and commercial fisheries? What is the net value of commercial fisheries to the EU economy, i.e. after the deduction of government subsidies? What is the net value of recreational angling?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The EU fisheries sector output in 2001 was around EUR 24 billion (0,3 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP)), from which EUR 6 billion is the value of landings, EUR 3 billion the value of aquaculture production, and EUR 15 billion the value of processing industry output.

The Commission does not have the required information on the weight of recreational fisheries.

The Community structural aid, co-financed by Member States, and covering a broad range of measures, is made available to the fisheries sector through multiannual programmes. Total public contribution programmed for the seven year period 2000-2006 is EUR 5,6 billion. There are other public interventions not quantifiable, at Commission level, which make impossible the calculation of the net value of commercial fisheries.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/919 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/919

---

(2004/C 84 E/1016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0936/04

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   EU Economic EU support for positive publicity

Will the Commission give a complete list of all medias which have received economic subsidies from the EU Commission, and the journalists who have received subsidies from the Commission's information office?

The question is based on information from the article ‘Brussels pays for positive publicity’ on: (http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=14700).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In May 2003, the Directorates-General for Enlargement, General Press and Communication and Secretariat General launched a call for proposals in the audiovisual sector, totalling EUR 16,5 million. It was intended for television and radio broadcasters and covered Enlargement, the Future of the EU and General Information on the EU.

The Honourable Member can find the results on the following sites:

| — | for ‘Enlargement’: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/pdf/audiovisual_2003_result_fr.pdf) |
| --- | --- |

—

for ‘Enlargement’: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/pdf/audiovisual_2003_result_fr.pdf)

| — | for ‘Future of the EU’ and ‘General Information on the EU’: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/presscommunication/grants/grantsen.htm) |
| --- | --- |

—

for ‘Future of the EU’ and ‘General Information on the EU’: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/presscommunication/grants/grantsen.htm)

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/920 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/920

---

(2004/C 84 E/1017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Components of small toys in food products

Given the accident statistics involving child suffocation by toys made up of small components, and specifically those to be found in food products.

Given the fact that the recommended age limit for these products is extremely low (normally age three) and that according to paediatricians children between the age of three and five tend to put any objects within their reach in their mouths.

Given that products of this type have been banned in the USA for decades, due to the inherent danger they represent.

Given that most European manufacturers do not sell this type of product.

Would the Commission, as part of its revision of the Toys Directive, consider:

| — | imposing larger minimum size standard patterns for the component pieces of toys, so as to prevent further serious accidents involving small components (cylinders as a child safety pattern); |
| --- | --- |

—

imposing larger minimum size standard patterns for the component pieces of toys, so as to prevent further serious accidents involving small components (cylinders as a child safety pattern);

| — | imposing a higher recommended age limit for these products? |
| --- | --- |

—

imposing a higher recommended age limit for these products?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the draft proposal for a revision of Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the safety of toys (1) is for the moment being discussed, in the framework of the Expert Group on the safety of toys, with the Member States, the associations of consumers and industry as well as with the standardisation organisations. The issue of toys contained in foodstuffs is, therefore, open for discussion in this context.

In general, it must be remembered that it is important for the intellectual development of children above a certain age, that they are able to play with toys containing small parts. The possible need for requirements for toys contained in foodstuffs can, however, in principle be addressed by provisions on age limits. Toys should only be marketed in combination with food if they are suitable for the age group that is likely to be the user. The possibility of clarification as regards the appropriate clearly legible warnings of the choking hazards on these products is also being examined.

Furthermore, in the context of the standardisation process which involves the participation of Member States and stakeholders, certain relevant questions can be addressed, like the possible need to change the cylinder test for small parts.

An impact assessment study on the revision of the Toys Directive is being carried out for the moment to examine the appropriate changes needed to the current Toys Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/921 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/921

---

(2004/C 84 E/1018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/04

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Interpretative notes relating to the transposition into national law of the Directives on the electricity and gas markets in the European Union

On 22 January 2004, and after the text had undergone a series of revisions, the Energy and Transport DG published on the Internet interpretative notes for the transposition into national law of the Directives on the electricity and gas markets in the European Union. Those interpretative notes lay down the procedures for the transposition by the Member States of Directives 2003/54/EC (1) and 2003/55/EC (2) into national law. They include some very detailed and far-reaching requirements which exceed those laid down in the Directives. For example, the role and actions of national regulatory authorities are specified in detail, and that restricts the Member States' room for manoeuvre originally laid down. There is a danger that, in the final analysis, the interpretative notes will contribute to legal uncertainty and create effects which were not intended by the bodies which participated in the legislative process.

| 1. | In the Commission's view, what role should the interpretative notes play in the transposition process? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Commission's view, what role should the interpretative notes play in the transposition process?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that the possibility cannot be excluded that the interpretative notes may lead to the creation of a de facto binding effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that the possibility cannot be excluded that the interpretative notes may lead to the creation of a de facto binding effect?

| 3. | In the Commission's view, how will the interpretative notes guarantee that the Member States have the requisite room for manoeuvre when they transpose the Directives referred to above? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the Commission's view, how will the interpretative notes guarantee that the Member States have the requisite room for manoeuvre when they transpose the Directives referred to above?

| 4. | In the Commission's view, can the possibility be excluded that the interpretative notes will be used as a yardstick for the assessment of national transposition measures and/or that they will be attributed a specific role in any actions brought before the European Court of Justice in connection with such transposition? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the Commission's view, can the possibility be excluded that the interpretative notes will be used as a yardstick for the assessment of national transposition measures and/or that they will be attributed a specific role in any actions brought before the European Court of Justice in connection with such transposition?

| 5. | Do the interpretative notes simply reflect the opinion of the Energy and Transport DG, or does the Commission as a body approve the notes and their content? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do the interpretative notes simply reflect the opinion of the Energy and Transport DG, or does the Commission as a body approve the notes and their content?

| 6. | The Directives referred to are the outcome of a common legislative process. That being the case, should not the interpretative notes have been mutually agreed by the bodies which participated in the legislative process? |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Directives referred to are the outcome of a common legislative process. That being the case, should not the interpretative notes have been mutually agreed by the bodies which participated in the legislative process?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Directives 2003/54/EC (3) and 2003/55/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on the internal markets in electricity and gas lay down a general framework for implementation. The interpretive notes for the transposition of the Directives are intended to explain and clarify various Articles in the Directives in order to assist the Member States with transposition, and draw their attention to certain points.

The interpretive notes represent no commitment on the part of the Commission, as explicitly mentioned in the title of the Internet document. They are guidelines and often suggest different options which leaves the Member States some room for manoeuvre, particularly as they are non-binding.

The Commission will base its analysis of the effectiveness of Member States' transposition of the Directives on a series of criteria, including the points mentioned in its interpretive notes. As indicated, the notes do not prejudice the final decision of the Commission or the Court of Justice. They reflect the opinion of the Energy and Transport DG, although several other DGs were consulted and account was taken of their opinions.

The draft interpretive notes were sent out to the energy administrations in the Member States and accession countries. These had an opportunity to comment either at the two special meetings held to examine the notes, or in writing. Subsequent meetings were held with industry, which also had a chance to comment. The Energy and Transport DG took account of the majority of observations made in the course of the consultations. In this context, Eurelectric thanked the Energy and Transport DG by letter of 5 February 2004 for taking account of the industry's views.

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 37.

(2)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 57.

(3)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/922 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/922

---

(2004/C 84 E/1019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0952/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88

In 1999, following the initiation of criminal proceedings against a former director relating to events dating back to the period 1991/1992 and unconnected with training activities, the Italian Ministry of Labour issued a training organisation with an order suspending financing for some EOS, Now, Adapt and Youthstart training programmes pending the outcome of those proceedings (procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1)).

The organisation in question appealed first to the Regional Administrative Court and then to the Council of State against this ministerial decision. This appeal was rejected on the grounds that the ministry had not cancelled the measures granting financing, but reserved the right to do so on conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

A final judgement was subsequently delivered acquitting the former director. The organisation therefore asked the ministry to launch the projects and release the corresponding financing. The ministry replied that, despite the acquittal, it could refuse to consent to the conclusion of the new agreement and, therefore, also to the launching of the activities.

However, procedure under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 is not very clear. It is unclear what the procedure should be for the relaunch of activities (and/or conclusion of an agreement on the carrying-on of activities) and the release of funds when a final outcome has been reached on the circumstances resulting in the freezing of financing (e.g. acquittal of the accused).

Could the Commission therefore indicate:

| 1. | Whether, besides the funds, the activities frozen can be reactivated? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether, besides the funds, the activities frozen can be reactivated?

| 2. | What procedure is provided for as regards conclusion of the agreement, since an order has been issued suspending both the conclusion of the agreement and the corresponding financing? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What procedure is provided for as regards conclusion of the agreement, since an order has been issued suspending both the conclusion of the agreement and the corresponding financing?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The decision to grant a subvention falls within the competence of the Designated Authority in Italy (in conformity with Community Regulations and the Operating Programme approved by the Commission, and Italian legislation). The case raised by the Honourable Member relates to an action decided upon by the Designated Authority managing the project in Italy and therefore, in order to either release the funds, or proceed with the activity, the matter should be addressed to the Designated Authority in Italy.

The Commission can provide contact details to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/923 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/923

---

(2004/C 84 E/1020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0953/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Discriminatory practices by Romania

With reference to the studies on the internal situation in Romania and the meetings held with the representatives of that country in the context of the accession negotiations:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the serious discriminatory policy being pursued by the Romanian State vis-à-vis foreign investors, and in particular Italian firms, participating in procedures for the privatisation of Romanian state-owned property? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the serious discriminatory policy being pursued by the Romanian State vis-à-vis foreign investors, and in particular Italian firms, participating in procedures for the privatisation of Romanian state-owned property?

| 2. | Does it know that these undertakings, despite having contributed to the recovery of vital sectors of the Romanian economy by way of substantial investments, are suffering repeated violations of their rights as guaranteed under European and Romanian regulations, particularly as regards the right of ownership, in favour of companies with links to the previous regime? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it know that these undertakings, despite having contributed to the recovery of vital sectors of the Romanian economy by way of substantial investments, are suffering repeated violations of their rights as guaranteed under European and Romanian regulations, particularly as regards the right of ownership, in favour of companies with links to the previous regime?

| 3. | Is it aware of the fact that the legal protection afforded by the Romanian legal system — under which judgements are passed by the supreme judicial bodies in violation of general legal principles and binding internal rules — has created great uncertainty as to the capacity for guaranteeing the rights of foreign investors participating in privatisation procedures in complete compliance with the national rules? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it aware of the fact that the legal protection afforded by the Romanian legal system — under which judgements are passed by the supreme judicial bodies in violation of general legal principles and binding internal rules — has created great uncertainty as to the capacity for guaranteeing the rights of foreign investors participating in privatisation procedures in complete compliance with the national rules?

| 4. | Is it conscious of the fact that this discriminatory policy is being pursued in spite of the public commitments made by the Romanian State to adopt reforms on the theme of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘combating corruption’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it conscious of the fact that this discriminatory policy is being pursued in spite of the public commitments made by the Romanian State to adopt reforms on the theme of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘combating corruption’?

| 5. | What measures will it take to counteract this discriminatory policy? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What measures will it take to counteract this discriminatory policy?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has closely monitored the development of a functioning market economy throughout the accession process with Romania. Although considerable progress has been made over recent years, the Commission's regular reports have made it clear that considerable reforms are still needed to attract greater amounts of foreign investment. Particular attention has been drawn to the high levels of corruption that exist, to weaknesses in the legal system, and to an overall business environment that remains difficult.

The Commission is not aware of any systematic discrimination against foreign investors in general or Italian firms in particular. However, if specific evidence of such discrimination is provided then the Commission will investigate fully and take the appropriate action either under the provisions of the EU-Romania Association Agreement or in the context of the accession negotiations.

In more general terms, the Commission will continue to support Romania's efforts to effectively tackle corruption and to guarantee the rule of law. Bilateral contacts will be used in order to urge Romanian authorities to prioritise these issues and financial assistance is being provided to promote anti-corruption initiatives and to modernise the judiciary.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/924 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/924

---

(2004/C 84 E/1021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0960/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination in recruitment procedures for European institutions

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, in 2003, more than 700 notices of vacancy were published by European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organisations, agencies financed by the Commission and private companies which specified that only ‘native English speakers’ and ‘candidates with English mother tongue’ need apply? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, in 2003, more than 700 notices of vacancy were published by European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organisations, agencies financed by the Commission and private companies which specified that only ‘native English speakers’ and ‘candidates with English mother tongue’ need apply?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that this constitutes manifest discrimination against persons who have ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English but are not ‘native speakers’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that this constitutes manifest discrimination against persons who have ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English but are not ‘native speakers’?

| 3. | Does the Commission share the view that, this being the case, candidates whose mother tongue is not English find it more difficult to find employment in the European institutions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission share the view that, this being the case, candidates whose mother tongue is not English find it more difficult to find employment in the European institutions?

| 4. | Is the Commission prepared to take measures to combat such discrimination which is, in part, supported by the Commission? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission prepared to take measures to combat such discrimination which is, in part, supported by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Concerning the issue of notices of vacancy published by European Technical Assistance Offices, Non-Governmental Organisations, agencies financed by the Commission and private companies, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04 by Mr Dhaene and others (1).

As for recruitment in the European Institutions, the language requirements in recruitment procedures for European institutions are laid down in the Staff Regulations. Open competition notices and vacancies advertisements never specify that only native speakers of any language or candidates with a specific mother tongue may apply. Some competitions or selection procedures, such as those for linguists, may require a specific knowledge of languages; however, even in these cases there is no request for candidates to be native speakers.

---

(1)  See page 301.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/925 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/925

---

(2004/C 84 E/1022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0962/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   The increasing dangers to public health and the environment caused by the increase in emissions of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, despite the lower fuel consumption of new motor vehicles, the emission of very small particulate matter from diesel engines is increasing, because more efficient combustion has reduced the size, but sharply increased the amount, of particulate matter, with the result that it penetrates more deeply into the lungs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, despite the lower fuel consumption of new motor vehicles, the emission of very small particulate matter from diesel engines is increasing, because more efficient combustion has reduced the size, but sharply increased the amount, of particulate matter, with the result that it penetrates more deeply into the lungs?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that, in the case of petrol engines, too, as a result of new direct injection systems which do not require the fuel to be vaporised, ultrafine particulate matter with a diameter of between 20 and 80 nanometers is emitted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that, in the case of petrol engines, too, as a result of new direct injection systems which do not require the fuel to be vaporised, ultrafine particulate matter with a diameter of between 20 and 80 nanometers is emitted?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that, particularly in and around major conurbations, the concentration of small particulate matter is so great that it can result in cancers, asthma, bronchitis, myocardial and cerebral infarcts and, possibly, even affect genetic material (gene mutation)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that, particularly in and around major conurbations, the concentration of small particulate matter is so great that it can result in cancers, asthma, bronchitis, myocardial and cerebral infarcts and, possibly, even affect genetic material (gene mutation)?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Junior Minister for the Environment believes that the Euro 4 standard, which will apply in the EU from 2005 onwards, is too lax and has been strongly influenced by motor vehicle manufacturers and oil companies, with the result that, above all, particulate matter emissions will remain excessively high and contribute to global warming and that he therefore feels that European emission standards should be reviewed and made much more stringent? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Junior Minister for the Environment believes that the Euro 4 standard, which will apply in the EU from 2005 onwards, is too lax and has been strongly influenced by motor vehicle manufacturers and oil companies, with the result that, above all, particulate matter emissions will remain excessively high and contribute to global warming and that he therefore feels that European emission standards should be reviewed and made much more stringent?

| 5. | By what date may we expect a Commission proposal for a review, as suggested by the Netherlands Junior Minister? Will the disquieting data about the increase in the amount of dangerous particulate matter act as an incentive for it to speed up the review? |
| --- | --- |

5.

By what date may we expect a Commission proposal for a review, as suggested by the Netherlands Junior Minister? Will the disquieting data about the increase in the amount of dangerous particulate matter act as an incentive for it to speed up the review?

Source: The 11 March 2004 edition of ‘De Volskrant’, a Dutch newspaper

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/925 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/925

---

(2004/C 84 E/1023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0963/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   The Euro 4 standard and consequent restrictions on the fitting of particle traps to prevent the emission of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that little or no improvement may be expected over the next few years as regards the current level of emissions of particulate matter from cars, since most new private cars, including those where fuel consumption is comparatively high, will be able to comply with the Euro 4 standard in force in the EU without any specific measures being taken? That standard lays down that diesel engines for private cars and goods vehicles must emit less CO2 and nitrogen and that the maximum amount of particulate matter emitted by diesel-engined cars must be reduced from 0,5 gm to 0,025 gm, although no maximum emission values will be laid down for petrol engines with regard to particulate matter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that little or no improvement may be expected over the next few years as regards the current level of emissions of particulate matter from cars, since most new private cars, including those where fuel consumption is comparatively high, will be able to comply with the Euro 4 standard in force in the EU without any specific measures being taken? That standard lays down that diesel engines for private cars and goods vehicles must emit less CO2 and nitrogen and that the maximum amount of particulate matter emitted by diesel-engined cars must be reduced from 0,5 gm to 0,025 gm, although no maximum emission values will be laid down for petrol engines with regard to particulate matter.

| 2. | What is the Commission's assessment of the proposal put forward by experts that, henceforth, the crucial factor should be not one of maximum emissions of particulate matter calculated in grammes but of amount per kilometre, so that a standard of this type would have a greater impact on public health? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission's assessment of the proposal put forward by experts that, henceforth, the crucial factor should be not one of maximum emissions of particulate matter calculated in grammes but of amount per kilometre, so that a standard of this type would have a greater impact on public health?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the flexible standards in force from 2005 onwards will result in only a few motor vehicle manufacturers fitting their vehicles with the new traps which are now available — although, according to an inquiry commissioned by the national automobile associations of the Netherlands, Germany and Austria, they could reduce emissions to virtually zero — because that would entail a price increase of a few hundred euro per car, something which would hamper them in their attempts to increase their market share? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the flexible standards in force from 2005 onwards will result in only a few motor vehicle manufacturers fitting their vehicles with the new traps which are now available — although, according to an inquiry commissioned by the national automobile associations of the Netherlands, Germany and Austria, they could reduce emissions to virtually zero — because that would entail a price increase of a few hundred euro per car, something which would hamper them in their attempts to increase their market share?

| 4. | In the Commission's view, might more stringent regulation prompt manufacturers to fit particle traps in new cars, vans, goods vehicles and buses and coaches so that, in a few years' time, all vehicles would be so equipped? What action is it taking in this area? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the Commission's view, might more stringent regulation prompt manufacturers to fit particle traps in new cars, vans, goods vehicles and buses and coaches so that, in a few years' time, all vehicles would be so equipped? What action is it taking in this area?

| 5. | Does the Commission agree with the Netherlands Junior Minister for the Environment that EU legislation is currently preventing countries from offering tax incentives to promote the use of particle traps? Why may they not do so? What can the Commission do to bring about a change in the situation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission agree with the Netherlands Junior Minister for the Environment that EU legislation is currently preventing countries from offering tax incentives to promote the use of particle traps? Why may they not do so? What can the Commission do to bring about a change in the situation?

Source: The 11 March 2004 edition of ‘De Volkskrant’, a Dutch newspaper

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0962/04 and E-0963/04

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the effects, as expressed by the Honourable Member, of small particulates to human health. In spite of the progress made in reducing particle emissions from transport and other sources, the ambient air concentrations are still high in many regions of the Union. In some areas they exceed the ambient air quality limits.

It should be borne in mind that emissions of particles from passenger cars and light duty vehicles are currently regulated by Directive 98/69/EC (1), and those from heavy duty vehicles are laid down in Directive 1999/96/EC (2). The limit values were established according to the recommendations from the Commission programme on air quality, road traffic emissions, fuels and engine technologies (the Auto/Oil Programme (3)). The measures taken will result in a decrease of particle emissions from road transport of about 90 % between 1995 and 2020.

The Directives mentioned above do not prescribe technology but set emission limit values. It is up to the manufacturers to develop and use the most appropriate technology in order to comply with the limits. However, it is correct to say that it will not be necessary to apply filter technology in all cases, e.g. the emission limit values for passenger cars and light duty vehicles which will come into force on 1 January 2005 can be met — as a rule — without using this technology. Only a number of relatively large passenger car models will need filter technology in order to comply with the limit value for particulates (0,025 grams per kilometre (g/km).

In principle, the Commission agrees with the view expressed by the Honourable Member that more needs to be done to address particle emissions, including the fraction of very small particles.

Therefore, the Commission is currently working on draft proposals for legislation on light and heavy duty vehicles aiming at further reducing emissions from these sources. Particle emissions are a key issue in this work. It is planned that measures will soon be proposed by the Commission and transmitted to the Parliament and the Council through the co-decision procedure.

Moreover, the Commission is actively participating in the Particulate Measuring Programme (PMP) that is currently under way within the framework of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe. The aim of PMP is to develop a new particulate evaluation and measurement system for application during the type approval testing of passenger cars, light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines for particulate emissions. The system would permit the development of future emission standards and the application of new emission reduction technologies, taking into account that not only the total mass but also the particle size and number may be important criteria with respect to health effects. The applicability of the system would not only be to diesel vehicles/engines but also to spark ignition engines at the low emission levels expected from advanced technologies that will be on the market in the near future.

---

(1)  Directive 98/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC, OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.

(2)  Directive 1999/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles and amending Council Directive 88/77/EEC, OJ L 44, 16.2.2000.

(3)  COM(2000) 626 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/927 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/927

---

(2004/C 84 E/1024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0968/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Electromagnetic Compliance Standard

| 1. | Will the Commission clarify the remit of the European Electromagnetic Compliance Standard IEC61000? Is it a voluntary measure, a recommendation or one that is compulsory and therefore enforceable by law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission clarify the remit of the European Electromagnetic Compliance Standard IEC61000? Is it a voluntary measure, a recommendation or one that is compulsory and therefore enforceable by law?

| 2. | If it is enforceable by law, will the Commission state who holds responsibility for ensuring compliance with this standard? Is the Commission aware of any breaches of this standard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is enforceable by law, will the Commission state who holds responsibility for ensuring compliance with this standard? Is the Commission aware of any breaches of this standard?

| 3. | What is the maximum limit (in volts per metre) to which a house and its residents may be exposed under this standard? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the maximum limit (in volts per metre) to which a house and its residents may be exposed under this standard?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

IEC 61000 refers not to one but to a series of standards issued by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). A subset of these standards has been adopted by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) and harmonised under the Directive 89/336/EEC (1) (EMC Directive). For information, a summary of the relevant Cenelec standards harmonised under the EMC Directive is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

To establish compliance with the requirements of the EMC Directive, the manufacturer or his authorised representative has the choice between two main conformity assessment procedures. The manufacturer may decide to apply harmonised standards or to apply the protection requirement directly. In the latter case, the manufacturer must establish a technical construction file and obtain a certificate or report from a ‘competent body’.

Therefore, the application of harmonised standards is not mandatory under the EMC Directive. However, if the manufacturer decides to apply the harmonised standards and declares as such, the apparatus shall comply with those standards.

Enforcement of the EMC Directive is performed by Member States. If a manufacturer declares conformity to the EMC Directive by application of the relevant harmonised standards, and consequently if a Member State ascertains that this is not the case, or that a standard has been incorrectly applied (and as a result the apparatus does not meet the protection requirements), the Member State shall take the appropriate actions to remove the product from the market, prohibit its placing on the market or restrict its free movement. All such measures shall be notified to the Commission who instruct the case and inform the Member States if the measure is justified (safeguard clause procedure, Article 9 of the EMC Directive).

The Commission is unaware of any breaches (in respect of shortcomings) in the standards referred to in Annex 1. The EN 61000-3 series of standards refer to harmonics, voltage change, voltage fluctuation and flicker generated by apparatus. The EN 61000-6-1 and EN 61000-6-2 standards refer to immunity of apparatus. The EN 61000-6-4 standard refers to emission in industrial environment whereas the EN 61000-6-3 standard refers to emissions in residential environment.

The required limits in EN 61000-6-3 are:

| — | 30 Megahertz (MHz) to 230 MHz: 30dB (microvolt per meter) measured at a distance of 10 metres (m) (Quasi-peak measurement) |
| --- | --- |

—

30 Megahertz (MHz) to 230 MHz: 30dB (microvolt per meter) measured at a distance of 10 metres (m) (Quasi-peak measurement)

| — | 230 MHz to 1 000 MHz: 37dB (microvolt per meter) measured at a distance of 10m (Quasi-peak measurement) |
| --- | --- |

—

230 MHz to 1 000 MHz: 37dB (microvolt per meter) measured at a distance of 10m (Quasi-peak measurement)

| — | Below 30MHz: no radiation limits, only conducted limits. |
| --- | --- |

—

Below 30MHz: no radiation limits, only conducted limits.

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility, OJ L 139, 23.5.1989.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/928 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/928

---

(2004/C 84 E/1025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1001/04

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject:   Critical dialogue with Iranian theocracy on minorities

Has the issue of minorities been discussed during the critical dialogue with the Iranian theocracy and, if so, when and how, and what plans or strategies are in place for future dialogue concerning the position of minorities in Iran?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The EU and Iran have held specific discussions on Human Rights through three rounds of the EU — Iran Human Rights Dialogue. These meetings comprise the EU Troika and Iranian officials (including Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament and Judiciary), as well as representatives of Human Rights institutions, civil society and academia from both sides. Since the third and most recent round in October 2003, representatives from the Parliament also participate.

On the occasion of the first round in Tehran on 16/17 December 2002, two main themes were focused upon: Discrimination and Prevention of Torture.

The rights of minorities (ethnic and religious) were discussed under the theme Discrimination. This dialogue also feeds into the semi-annual Comprehensive Dialogue Meetings with Iran, held at deputy ministerial level and covering bilateral, regional and global matters including Human Rights.

As Council conclusions confirm, the EU monitors the Human Rights Dialogue and assesses progress on the issue of minorities, as well as other themes, on the basis of concrete benchmarks.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/929 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/929

---

(2004/C 84 E/1026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1011/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Extremely grave human rights situation in Vietnam and Laos

On 10 February 2004, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the rights, priorities and recommendations of the European Union in respect of the 60th sitting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (P5_TA-PROV(2004)0079). Parliament stressed the gravity of the situation in various countries, and called on the Commission and Council to raise various issues.

What initiatives has the Commission already taken, or will it take, within the framework of the 60th sitting of the UN Human Rights Committee, so as to ensure that the extremely serious situation of basic rights in Vietnam and Laos is adequately dealt with by the United Nations? In particular, has the Commission already submitted a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Laos and Vietnam to the Member States and the candidate countries? Does the Commission intend to coordinate possible EU initiatives concerning Vietnam and Laos with initiatives taken by other countries, particularly the USA, Japan, Australia and Canada?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The EU is one of the most active players in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and undertakes responsibility for a wide range of country and thematic initiatives. The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) conclusions of 23 March 2004, provided an indication of the initiatives which will be addressed in 2004. Laos and Vietnam are not included in that list and the EU has not agreed to the pursuit of resolutions relating to those countries.

EU deliberations on CHR initiatives took full account of the Parliament's resolution relating to the 60th CHR. However, it is not possible for the EU to put forward draft resolutions on all situations of concern. In order to operate effectively in the CHR, it is crucial that the EU focus on securing support for a limited number of initiatives, not least through intensive lobbying efforts.

As an Observer Organisation at the CHR, the Community itself has delivered a statement under Item 19 relating to technical co-operation activities and is not in a position to table or pursue particular country or thematic resolutions.

Human rights issues of concern in Vietnam and Laos are regularly addressed within the political and human rights dialogues which the EU has established with these countries.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/929 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/929

---

(2004/C 84 E/1027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Emergency on the ferrous metals market

The alarming rise in the prices of ferrous metals in the last year and the price explosion in 2004 are affecting a large proportion of businesses (craft industries and SMEs) in northern Italy. There have been record increases in the prices of steel, copper, aluminium and nickel, ranging from 22 % for nickel to 100 % for steel. Suppliers guarantee price quotations for only a few days, or sometimes even only 24 hours. The situation is aggravated by the shortage of raw materials, and production is minimal compared with demand. The greatest threats come from the Chinese, Indian and Russian markets, whose imports of ferrous metals doubled or — in the case of China — trebled between 1999 and 2003. The prospects are far from reassuring, since demand is set to increase in the coming years. At the same time China is drastically reducing the export of coke needed to fuel foundries. The emergency is in particular adversely affecting machine shops, wire-drawing, small metal products, turning shops, carpenters, electricians and plumbers.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it has assessed the consequences of this emergency and the grave difficulties it is causing and will continue to cause on the market, with incalculable threats to employment and the European economy, specifically in northern Italy; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has assessed the consequences of this emergency and the grave difficulties it is causing and will continue to cause on the market, with incalculable threats to employment and the European economy, specifically in northern Italy;

| — | whether, in order to avoid these undesirable consequences, it considers that the expediency of quota restrictions should be assessed; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, in order to avoid these undesirable consequences, it considers that the expediency of quota restrictions should be assessed;

| — | what other steps it might propose to avoid the worst and prevent the closure of many small businesses? |
| --- | --- |

—

what other steps it might propose to avoid the worst and prevent the closure of many small businesses?

Reply by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission keeps a close eye on developments in the world markets for steel, non-ferrous metals and the raw materials needed for their production, and on the impact that the growing demand for these products in Asia has on the markets and prices for these products in the countries of the European Union. The steel and metals industries are particularly affected at present by the parallel increases in the prices of all the raw materials they need, including in particular scrap, coke and ferro alloys.

The Community is a major producer of steel and metals, and at times like these, with rocketing world demand and prices, all operators need to be careful about the scale of their purchases and stocks so as to minimise the impact of their increasing financial exposure on the activities of their businesses. The metal industry and all its downstream production and distribution operators alike are faced with this necessity, but, of these, it is the small businesses that see their capacity for negotiation weakened compared with the major customers. It would seem, therefore, that the Community market is not so much faced with a problem of raw-materials supply as with considerable price pressure.

If this situation were to continue, small businesses that use metals would indeed be at risk. Over the last few weeks, however, there has been a significant slackening in demand from Asia, which has an immediate impact on world price levels. Even if we cannot draw any conclusions at this stage, this is an encouraging sign.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will continue to keep a close eye on developments in the metals market and use any means at its disposal to react to any imbalances that are likely to lead to a genuine shortage.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/930 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/930

---

(2004/C 84 E/1028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1024/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Olympic Airways

The Greek press has reported that, in the next few days, the Commission will bring an action against Greece before the European Court of Justice for providing unlawful State subsidies to Olympic Airways (OA). According to the reports, there are reasons to suppose that illegal subsidies were paid during the process of dividing OA into two and the attempt to privatise Olympic Airlines as well as during the process of collecting and allocating the passenger levy for the construction of the new airport at Spata.

In its answer to my question (E-2837/03 (1)) concerning the safeguarding of OA workers' rights following the creation of the new company Olympic Airlines', the Commission stated that it would investigate the matter and inform us of its findings.

In the light of the foregoing, can the Commission elaborate on its legal arguments pertaining to unlawful subsidies? What are the findings (answer to question E-2837/03) of the investigation into the safeguarding of the rights of the workers being transferred to the new company and those remaining with the old company, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (2)?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the supplementary answer given by the Commission to his written question E-2837/03 (3).

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 206.

(2)  OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.

(3)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/931 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/931

---

(2004/C 84 E/1029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1026/04

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Axle weighing of HGVs at the German-Czech border

With enlargement to the East, all checks at the Union's internal borders will be abolished, including checks on individuals. However, when I visited the Schirnding border crossing I was told that the Czech Government intends to continue with the weighing of HGVs, in particular axle weighing. This would result in considerable waiting times at the border crossing, hence undermining one of the tangible advantages of enlargement, namely an end to lengthy delays at borders.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the Czech Government's intentions in this matter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the Czech Government's intentions in this matter?

| 2. | Would the continuation of this practice be compatible with the obligations of membership of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the continuation of this practice be compatible with the obligations of membership of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (1) stipulates that controls performed pursuant to Community or national law in the fields of road and inland waterway transport between Member States must no longer be performed as frontier-control but solely as part of the normal control procedures applied in a non-discriminatory fashion throughout the territory of a Member State.

Annex V to the Treaty of Accession, dealing with transitional measures applicable to the Czech Republic, makes no provision for a temporary derogation from this rule. For the Czech Republic to continue applying systematic border controls after it joins the Union, as the Honourable Member indicates, would not therefore appear to be compatible with Community law if confirmed as such.

In any event, the Commission would point out that the Czech Republic has not been granted a transitional period in respect of the application of Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 (2), as amended by Directive 2002/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 (3), laying down for certain road vehicles the maximum authorised dimensions in international traffic. This Directive will be fully applicable as soon as the Czech Republic joins the Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 390, 30.12.1989.

(2)  OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(3)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/932 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/932

---

(2004/C 84 E/1030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Safeguarding the public lending right in Portuguese libraries

A petition on the Internet reveals that on 16 January 2004 the Commission decided to formally request information from Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland and Luxembourg regarding their national implementation of the public lending right, the commercial rental right and certain rights related to copyright in the sphere of intellectual property.

This means that there may be a charge for borrowing books and other documents in Portuguese libraries — whether public, school, university or other libraries.

In a country such as Portugal, in which economic problems and the fact that reading is not yet a well-established habit make access to knowledge and culture difficult for broad sections of the population, a measure of this kind would be disastrous, jeopardising the current campaign to promote reading, and would be a retrograde step as regards making the Portuguese better qualified to tackle successfully the challenge of the ‘knowledge society’.

The Commission:

| 1. | Can it confirm this information? If so, what steps will it take to guarantee European citizens free and unrestricted access to knowledge, the expression of ideas, culture and information? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it confirm this information? If so, what steps will it take to guarantee European citizens free and unrestricted access to knowledge, the expression of ideas, culture and information?

| 2. | What measures does it envisage to ensure that the current arrangements for the benefit of libraries, archives, museums and similar entities, which are at present exempt under the law on intellectual property, are maintained on exactly the same terms in Portuguese legislation, in accordance with the legal framework created by Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures does it envisage to ensure that the current arrangements for the benefit of libraries, archives, museums and similar entities, which are at present exempt under the law on intellectual property, are maintained on exactly the same terms in Portuguese legislation, in accordance with the legal framework created by Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The public lending right was harmonised in 1992 by Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property. The Member States voted unanimously in favour of this Council Directive.

The aims of the concept of the public lending right given in the directive (2) are to help create a genuine single market in goods and services protected by intellectual property and to take account of the different traditions of the Member States in the field of public lending. To this end, Article 5 of the directive lays down that Member States may derogate from the exclusive right in respect of public lending, provided that at least authors obtain a remuneration for such lending. In addition, Member States may also exempt certain categories of lending establishments from all lending rights.

It is therefore possible to strike a balance between the fair and necessary remuneration of those who create products and the widest possible access to culture and knowledge via public lending. This point was reiterated by the Internal Market Commissioner on 16 September 2002 (3) when the report on the application of the public lending right in the Member States was published. (4):

| | The challenge is to ... maintain good public access to cultural products while making sure that those who create them get equitable remuneration which allows them to keep on working and giving us pleasure. |
| --- | --- |

The challenge is to ... maintain good public access to cultural products while making sure that those who create them get equitable remuneration which allows them to keep on working and giving us pleasure.

In order to attain this balance and ensure that the directive is properly applied, the Commission has indeed instituted infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against Member States which have not — or have incorrectly — transposed Articles 1 and 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC (and which have, for example, exempted all categories of public lending establishments from the lending right (5)), as this is clearly damaging to the smooth operation of the single market and to its rightholders. It is the responsibility of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that primary and secondary Community legislation is applied fully and correctly in all Member States.

In addition, the Commission would like to point out that it is not responsible for laying down or deciding upon the system set up at national level to ensure that the aforementioned directive is transposed. This responsibility lies with the Member States, which do, moreover, have a wide margin of flexibility in implementing the public lending right (6).

The Commission is, however, required to ensure that the public lending right, as harmonised by Community legislation, is applied effectively in all Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61.

(2)  See point No 3.3 of the Commission Communication on the public lending right in the European Union, COM(2002) 502 final.

(3)  See press release IP/02/1303.

(4)  Above-mentioned Communication, see footnote No 1.

(5)  See press release IP/04/60 of 16.1.2004.

(6)  See Article 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC and points 3.3 and 3.4 of the Communication COM(2002) 502 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/933 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/933

---

(2004/C 84 E/1031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission

There have been complaints regarding the way in which competitions organised by the Commission have been conducted to the detriment of Portuguese candidates. One recent case involves the competition published in Official Journal (1), in which the Portuguese lawyer José Manuel Barbosa Gonçalves of Viana do Castelo was a candidate. He has already submitted a complaint to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. It seems that the selection board made serious mistakes, as regards the list of final answers, some of which were withdrawn because the questions had been withdrawn, and the deadline for appeals, as well as inaccuracies, contradictions and translation errors and obvious mistakes in the notice of competition.

We cannot run the risk of having a preponderance of candidates of a few select nationalities in the European institutions protected by means of dubious criteria.

Can the Commission therefore say what steps have been taken to ensure that all candidates benefit from the same conditions of impartiality and independence, ensuring that their competence is assessed on the basis of objective criteria?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the opinion of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2004 on the case brought by the candidate. The Court rejected all claims by Mr Barbosa. Therefore, there can be no question of the kind of irregularities imputed to the Commission. A copy of this Judgement is sent directly to the Honourable Member.

The Commission can also confirm that, in keeping with established arrangements, all possible measures have been taken to ensure the equality of treatment of all candidates who participated in the pre-selection tests and written exams of the competition referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

As is the case for all competitions, an independent Selection Board was appointed in this case in order to prepare and mark the different exam papers. This Board comprised a capable team of experienced Commission officials, covering a broad range of Community languages and working in the two fields covered by the notice of competition. The questions were carefully checked before they were sent to the Translation Service of the Commission. All exam papers — the optical reader forms on which the candidates marked their replies to the pre-selection tests as well as the written exams — remained anonymous throughout the marking process. Each written exam was marked by two markers working independently. If necessary, third markings took place before the Selection Board decided on the final mark.

In response to the assertion about a ‘preponderance of staff members from some nationalities’, in relation to this specific case, the Commission emphasises that the competition comprised two different fields (external relations — field 1 — and management of aid to non-member countries' — field 2), each resulting in separate reserve lists. The list for the first working field was relatively short and comprised 80 successful candidates. This list indicated a substantial — though far from preponderant — representation of citizens of one Member State, whereas the list for the second field, comprising 250 successful candidates, demonstrated a more even spread by nationality. The administrative procedures used, through their rigour and transparency, ensured that all candidates benefited from the same conditions of impartiality and independence. In view of the above, the Commission therefore considers that equality of treatment has been ensured throughout the whole process.

In response to the Honourable Member's more general comment about the protection of a preponderance of candidates from particular nationalities, the Commission would reiterate its obligation and the law and its policy commitment to maintaining geographical balance across the Institutions combined with the rigorous procedures to guarantee merit applied in all cases.

---

(1)  OJ C 110 A,l1.4.2001.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/934 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/934

---

(2004/C 84 E/1032)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1041/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Number portability in connection with mobile telephony

| 1. | Can the Commission give details of the EU Member States and accession countries in which number portability in connection with mobile telephony had not been introduced by 1 March 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission give details of the EU Member States and accession countries in which number portability in connection with mobile telephony had not been introduced by 1 March 2004?

| 2. | Can the Commission give details of the extent to which telecommunications operators in the Member States impose conditions on customers who wish to change operators but keep their numbers, such as long waiting periods and the charging of costs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission give details of the extent to which telecommunications operators in the Member States impose conditions on customers who wish to change operators but keep their numbers, such as long waiting periods and the charging of costs?

| 3. | Number portability was supposed to have been introduced in the Member States by mid-2002. What measures does the Commission plan to take against those Member States which have failed to meet this deadline with a view to forcing them to implement number portability in the near future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Number portability was supposed to have been introduced in the Member States by mid-2002. What measures does the Commission plan to take against those Member States which have failed to meet this deadline with a view to forcing them to implement number portability in the near future?

| 4. | From the point of view of the functioning of the market, how does the Commission assess the conditions imposed on customers, such as long waiting periods, the charging of costs, etc.? |
| --- | --- |

4.

From the point of view of the functioning of the market, how does the Commission assess the conditions imposed on customers, such as long waiting periods, the charging of costs, etc.?

| 5. | Does the Commission share my view that such conditions must be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that a genuine market can operate? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission share my view that such conditions must be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that a genuine market can operate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) mandates mobile number portability in its Article 30. This Directive has been applicable since 25 July 2003.
  As of 1 March 2004, mobile number portability has been implemented in all Member States except Austria.
  As far as Accession Countries are concerned, information available to the Commission shows that mobile number portability is included in the draft national legislations transposing the Community framework on electronic communications. In practice however, it will be available some time after the accession date on 1 May 2004, except in Lithuania and Hungary, where it should already be implemented. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) mandates mobile number portability in its Article 30. This Directive has been applicable since 25 July 2003.

As of 1 March 2004, mobile number portability has been implemented in all Member States except Austria.

As far as Accession Countries are concerned, information available to the Commission shows that mobile number portability is included in the draft national legislations transposing the Community framework on electronic communications. In practice however, it will be available some time after the accession date on 1 May 2004, except in Lithuania and Hungary, where it should already be implemented.

| 2. | The Universal Service Directive states that national regulatory authorities (NRAs) should ensure that direct charges to subscribers should not act as a disincentive towards number portability. In the 9th Implementation Report, published in December 2003 (1) the Commission had noted that the success of number portability seemed to be linked to the charge imposed by the operator for porting the number. As of 1 August 2003, 6 million mobile numbers had been ported. The Commission is not aware of specific problems in the Member States in relation to mobile number portability, except in Austria, as mentioned above. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Universal Service Directive states that national regulatory authorities (NRAs) should ensure that direct charges to subscribers should not act as a disincentive towards number portability. In the 9th Implementation Report, published in December 2003 (1) the Commission had noted that the success of number portability seemed to be linked to the charge imposed by the operator for porting the number. As of 1 August 2003, 6 million mobile numbers had been ported. The Commission is not aware of specific problems in the Member States in relation to mobile number portability, except in Austria, as mentioned above.

| 3. | The Commission is currently considering the appropriate action to be taken against Austria. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is currently considering the appropriate action to be taken against Austria.

| 4. | The Commission is, as mentioned, not aware of specific problems in Member States. NRAs in the Member States have defined the conditions to be applied for mobile number portability, when the operators were not able to reach an agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is, as mentioned, not aware of specific problems in Member States. NRAs in the Member States have defined the conditions to be applied for mobile number portability, when the operators were not able to reach an agreement.

| 5. | The Commission believes constraints on consumers should be kept to a minimum in order to increase competition. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission believes constraints on consumers should be kept to a minimum in order to increase competition.

---

(1)  COM 2003(715) final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/935 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/935

---

(2004/C 84 E/1033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Pensions: discrimination against private pensions

Can the Commission clarify why third pillar pensions (personal pensions, group personal pensions and stakeholder pensions) are to be included within the scope of the proposed directive on equal treatment between women and men in access to and supply of goods and services (1) when second pillar pensions (occupational pensions) are not? Will the Commission accept that this is discrimination against the private sector?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission's proposal for a Council Directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services prohibits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in insurance services and private (third pillar) pension schemes.

Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 27 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (2) (as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 (3)) permits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in occupational (second pillar) pension schemes. These Directives are based on Article 141 of the EC Treaty because they relate to matters of employment and occupation.

The proposal for a Council Directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty does not apply to second pillar pensions, because these are a matter for legislation adopted under Article 141 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  COM(2003)0657 final - C5-0654/2003.

(2)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.

(3)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/936 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/936

---

(2004/C 84 E/1034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Implications for the Community textile sector of certain trade practices on the part of China

The Spanish Intertextile Council has formally requested the World Trade Organisation to establish a three-year extension to prevent the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing from coming into force until 2007; this Agreement will remove all quotas, and will bring about the total liberalisation of the sector. The main reason for the Spanish request is the existence of certain ‘unfair’ trading practices on the part of various countries involved in the Agreement, such as China.

Other countries, including the USA, Turkey and Mexico, have joined Spain in signing the ‘Istanbul Declaration’, stating their fear that China will globally dominate the textile and clothes sector, if it continues with these practices, deemed illegal by the international community.

Does the Commission have further information concerning these facts?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to defend the European textiles sector against China's ‘unfair’ trading practices?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the contents of the so-called ‘Istanbul Declaration’ whereby United States, Mexican and Turkish industry associations called for an extension of the validity of the Agreement on Textiles of Clothing (ATC) for a further period of two years beyond its expiry date at the end of 2004. On 4 May 2003 a letter in this sense was forwarded to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Director General. Furthermore, it is also known that the Italian and Spanish industry are supportive of this initiative. Some developing countries, notably sub-Saharan, also appear to be supportive of an extension of the validity of the ATC.

The Commission wishes to point out that the ATC constituted a major result of the Uruguay Round negotiations in favour of developing countries and that it has no intention not to abide by this carefully negotiated result. In fact, the EU, United States, Canada and Japan have already notified the WTO Textiles Monitoring Body that, in conformity with the provisions of the ATC, restrictions on imports of textiles and clothing from WTO members will be eliminated on schedule by the end of 2004. Any modification to the contents of the ATC, and in particular its duration or extension, would have to be agreed upon by WTO members. To the Commission's knowledge, no WTO members have to date put forward such a proposal.

In response to the Honourable Member's comments about unfair competition, there is the possibility of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy or safeguard measures, in response to a complaint from European industry, when the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

In addition there are specific modalities which apply to China and according to which safeguard measures may be taken against imports from that country beyond the duration of the ATC. Such specific measures are authorized under China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/937 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/937

---

(2004/C 84 E/1035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1062/04

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Economic impact of migration following enlargement of the European Union

On 26 February 2004, the European Commission presented a new study, drawn up in conjunction with the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, into patterns of migrant-worker flows after the forthcoming enlargement. The conclusions of that study indicate that, over the next five years, some 1 % of the population of the new Member States will move to the countries which currently make up the European Union. According to the Commission, that percentage translates into about 220 000 people per year.

Can the Commission indicate whether it has any estimates which include figures for each host country, and, in particular, what the likely impact of such post-enlargement migration will be on France?

Can the Commission also indicate the economic impact of enlargement on the labour market of a country like France, where the unemployment rate is particularly high?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The study to which the Honourable Member refers is based on the results of a Eurobarometer survey carried out on a population sample in the future Member States and the candidate countries, one of the topics being opinions concerning intentions to migrate in the next five years. On this basis, the figure of 220 000 per year is an indicative estimate of the possible annual migratory flow from these countries to the current European Union. As it is an opinion poll, its conclusions should be interpreted with caution. However, they confirm the conclusions of previous Commission studies (1) on the low migratory flows to be expected from the new Member States to the existing ones, although the migration estimates provided by these studies are based on statistical models and are therefore not strictly comparable to those set out in the study referred to by the Honourable Member.

According to the updated study, the number of residents from the central and eastern European countries (CEECs) in France would be approximately 25 800 in 2001, compared with 22 000 in 1997, representing 0,04 % of the total population. Migration to France would be 7 000 in 2004 and 9 000 in 2005. The studies confirm that Germany and Austria are the main destinations for migrants from the CEECs.

With regard to the economic impact of this enlargement on the labour market, the Commission believes that the Union must make the most of the positive effect of enlargement on Europe's economy (2). Moreover, the Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment (3) highlighted the positive contribution which immigration has made to economic growth and employment in the EU and pointed out that there was little evidence that immigration would lead to an increase in unemployment. The Commission believes that labour mobility within the EU and taking greater advantage of the potential offered by immigration are crucial issues for EU competitiveness and achieving the objectives of the Lisbon agenda.

---

(1)  The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Employment and Labour Markets in the EU Member States' and its update, ‘Potential Migration from Central and Eastern Europe into the EU-15 — An Update’. The study and its update are available at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/impact_en.htm

(2)  COM(2004) 29 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/938 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/938

---

(2004/C 84 E/1036)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1063/04

by Marie-Françoise Duthu (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Russo-Chechen conflict — mediation by the European Union between the governments of Vladimir Putin and Asian Maskhadov

Since 1994, Chechnya has been ravaged by two wars of exceptional violence. According to the most recent estimates, one fifth of the civilian population has been killed, a capital city of 400 000 inhabitants has been razed to the ground, the infrastructure has been completely destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are living in inhumane conditions in ‘temporary’ camps.

All the humanitarian and human rights NGOs working on the ground have made the same observations: a marked deterioration in the situation of civilians and an increased number of disappearances and deadly ‘cleansings’ of villages by Russian troops.

On 23 March 2003, in the midst of the war and while Russian tanks were still in the streets of Grozny, Moscow enforced the holding of a ‘referendum’ on a ‘new constitution’. The results of the referendum, for which the turnout was 80 % and in which 96 % of the electorate voted for the constitution, were reminiscent of the Soviet era and disputed by all independent observers.

On 5 October 2003, Moscow's stooge, Akhmad Kadyrov, became the ‘official’ President of the Republic of Chechnya in a sham election, the thinly disguised aim of which was the political isolation of Asian Maskhadov's government. The election of that government, the most recent legally elected government in Chechnya, was recognised in 1997 by the OSCE, and it remains the only legitimate government to date.

Since the beginning of the second war in October 1999, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have adopted numerous resolutions calling for a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya, but they have not, however, produced the desired effect.

I believe that Europe could do more than it is doing at present to promote a negotiated political solution to the current conflict.

It is clear that a serious attempt to find a political solution to the war in Chechnya will, sooner or later, ultimately bring to the negotiating table the two parties to the conflict, the representatives of Vladimir Putin and those of Asian Maskhadov.

What specific action does the Commission plan to take in the next few weeks and months with a view to promoting a negotiated political solution of that nature? In particular, does the Commission intend to contribute to the establishment of a dialogue between the two sides in the conflict, the government of Vladimir Putin and that of Asian Maskhadov? What incentives does it think that it will be able to propose in order to encourage them to take part in this dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission remains deeply concerned at the current situation in the North Caucasus. There are continued reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya and reprisals against civilians by Russian armed forces and their Chechen allies, as well as rebels.

The implementation of shared values in the fields of democracy and human rights underpin the EU-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation and are central elements in the EU-Russia partnership. This has been underlined in the Commission Communication on relations with Russia of 9 February 2004 (1), as well as in the Council Conclusions of 23 February 2004. The Commission believes that it is essential to hold an open and frank dialogue with Russia on these issues.

The Commission promotes respect for human rights and democracy in Russia through a number of projects that are financed under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. These activities are implemented in cooperation with civil society and international organisations. The Tacis programme is also active in this domain. In North Caucasus, there is a specific joint programme between the Commission and the Council of Europe to promote pluralist democracy and the rule of law. The Commission will also continue to press Russia to adequately investigate all allegations of human rights abuses in a prompt, independent and impartial manner. Those responsible should be prosecuted. Russia should also permit publication of the Council of Europe report on torture in Chechnya and allow the United Nations (UN) rapporteurs on torture and on summary executions to report on the situation.

The Commission will continue to raise the issue of respect for human rights in appropriate international fora and within the framework of the EU's political dialogue with Russia, such as in the meeting of the EU-Russia Ministerial Troika in Dublin on 14 April 2004 and the EU-Russia Summit in Moscow in May 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 106 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/939 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/939

---

(2004/C 84 E/1037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Commemoration in the town of Greccio of the first crib featuring live animals

Greccio, a town in the province of Rieti twinned with Bethlehem, is famous all over the world for the commemoration of the first crib featuring live animals, devised by St Francis in 1223. Since 1973 the local tourist board has committed itself to publicising and preserving this unique historic cultural event. As a result of the work done over the years interest in the event has increased considerably. It involves more than one thousand people in period costume and attracts thousands of visitors from all over the world.

The whole initiative is designed to promote the dissemination of culture and traditions across borders, which is one of the objectives of the ‘Culture 2000’ programme.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative in the context of ‘Culture 2000’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative in the context of ‘Culture 2000’;

| 2. | whether the sector is included in the priorities for 2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the sector is included in the priorities for 2004;

| 3. | whether this kind of event might be funded via other programmes, in addition to ‘Culture 2000’; |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this kind of event might be funded via other programmes, in addition to ‘Culture 2000’;

| 4. | whether the Commission itself might sponsor the initiative? |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether the Commission itself might sponsor the initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Culture 2000 programme was established in order to encourage artistic and cultural cooperation in Europe and to work towards creating a common cultural area. It supports projects which have a European dimension in terms of their design, organisation and realisation. Accordingly, this programme awards funding to cultural cooperation projects run jointly by European partners in all artistic and cultural fields (the performing arts, fine arts, literature, heritage, cultural history, etc.).

A call for proposals is published every year to invite the submission of cultural cooperation projects to begin the following year. The call for proposals for projects beginning in 2004 was thus published in August 2003, with submission deadlines of 30 October and 14 November 2003, depending on the type of project. The call for proposals for projects beginning in 2005 should be published in the first half of 2004. The Commission has not set any specific priorities for this call for proposals.

In addition to the Culture 2000 programme, many other Community actions support cultural activities, e.g. the Structural Funds, as seen in a Commission working paper which was recently completed and is available on the Europa website at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html). The town of Greccio, however, is not eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the 2000-2006 programming exercise.

With regard to sponsorship, the criteria of a European dimension and a European element must be fulfilled. The Commission would be happy to examine any application for sponsorship submitted by the town of Greccio. However, sponsorship involves moral support which does not entail any financial obligation for the Commission, and no assumptions should be made on this basis concerning the outcome of any application for funding which may be submitted.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/940 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/940

---

(2004/C 84 E/1038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1082/04

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Decision taken by the Netherlands to expel more than 26 000 whose applications for asylum have been rejected

In the light of the decision taken by the Netherlands to expel several thousand asylum-seekers whose applications have been dismissed:

| 1. | Does not that decision breach the principle of non-refoulement because of the situation currently obtaining in the countries of origin of a number of asylum-seekers (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.)?
  It would appear that some of the people denied asylum meet the Geneva Convention criteria and may not be expelled to their countries of origin, where they might be killed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does not that decision breach the principle of non-refoulement because of the situation currently obtaining in the countries of origin of a number of asylum-seekers (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.)?

It would appear that some of the people denied asylum meet the Geneva Convention criteria and may not be expelled to their countries of origin, where they might be killed.

| 2. | Must we not take the view that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been breached, in so far as the rejected asylum-seekers are being expelled immediately after the first notification that their application has been rejected and (since, accordingly measures should be taken to review their cases) although they should have the right to lodge an appeal against that decision?
  It seems that the applications from a large number of asylum-seekers were not given fair consideration between 1993 and 1998 (because of what is known as the 48-hour AC procedure, which did not allow the asylum-seekers to submit evidence which they had obtained subsequently). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must we not take the view that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been breached, in so far as the rejected asylum-seekers are being expelled immediately after the first notification that their application has been rejected and (since, accordingly measures should be taken to review their cases) although they should have the right to lodge an appeal against that decision?

It seems that the applications from a large number of asylum-seekers were not given fair consideration between 1993 and 1998 (because of what is known as the 48-hour AC procedure, which did not allow the asylum-seekers to submit evidence which they had obtained subsequently).

| 3. | Should we not condemn the use by the Netherlands Government of the English words ‘deport’ and ‘deportation centre’? The use of such words seems at the very least inappropriate or unsuitable in this context. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should we not condemn the use by the Netherlands Government of the English words ‘deport’ and ‘deportation centre’? The use of such words seems at the very least inappropriate or unsuitable in this context.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

| 1. | At present, the Commission has no power to intervene in individual cases concerning the removal of asylum seekers from the Netherlands. The two proposals for directives that would be relevant have not yet been adopted by the Council (the directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures and the directive on the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection). Given that this proposed Community legislation is not yet adopted or in force, the Commission cannot examine whether the principle of non-refoulement would be at stake in the individual cases. |
| --- | --- |

1.

At present, the Commission has no power to intervene in individual cases concerning the removal of asylum seekers from the Netherlands. The two proposals for directives that would be relevant have not yet been adopted by the Council (the directive on minimum standards for asylum procedures and the directive on the qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection). Given that this proposed Community legislation is not yet adopted or in force, the Commission cannot examine whether the principle of non-refoulement would be at stake in the individual cases.

| 2. | The Commission would like to refer the right Honourable Member to the reply to question No E-0618/04 from Ms Karamanou (1). Moreover, the Commission would like to stress that if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been or are being violated, he or she can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhaustion of national remedies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission would like to refer the right Honourable Member to the reply to question No E-0618/04 from Ms Karamanou (1). Moreover, the Commission would like to stress that if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been or are being violated, he or she can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhaustion of national remedies.

| 3. | The Commission suggested the term ‘removal’ instead of ‘deportation’ for instance in its Communication on a community return policy on illegal residents (2). It must be emphasised, however, that there is no legally binding terminology in this context. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission suggested the term ‘removal’ instead of ‘deportation’ for instance in its Communication on a community return policy on illegal residents (2). It must be emphasised, however, that there is no legally binding terminology in this context.

---

(1)  See page 822.

(2)  COM(2002) 564 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/941 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/941

---

(2004/C 84 E/1039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1084/04

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive in respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace

Will the Commission investigate and comment whether there has been a breach of the European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC (1)) with respect to the announcement of up to 421 redundancies by FLS Aerospace at Stansted and Manchester in the United Kingdom on 16 January 2004, without apparent prior reference to their Works Council? Given the fact that Easyjet are reported to be subsidised by GBP 16 400 to fly their aeroplanes to Dublin for maintenance instead, and given the apparent link to the subsequent acquisition of FLS Aerospace by SR Technics of Switzerland, could the Commission also investigate and comment on any possible breaches of European competition law?

---

(1)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/941 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/941

---

(2004/C 84 E/1040)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1088/04

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive with respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace

Will the Commission investigate and comment as to whether there has been a breach of the European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC (1)) with respect to the announcement of up to 421 redundancies by FLS Aerospace at Stansted and Manchester in the United Kingdom on 16 January 2004, without apparent prior reference to the relevant Works Council? Given the fact that easyJet are reported to be subsidised by GBP 16 400 to fly their aeroplanes to Dublin for maintenance instead, and given the apparent link to the subsequent acquisition of FIS Aerospace by SR Technics of Switzerland, could the Commission also investigate and comment on any possible breaches of European competition law?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-1084/04 and P-1088/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission understands that there is an agreement between management and employee representatives in FLS Industries which the parties regard as being an agreement as envisaged in Article 13 of the European Works Councils Directive (2). It is for the parties to the agreement themselves to assess whether the announcement of the redundancies referred to by the Honourable Members are in breach of any requirement in that agreement. The Commission understands that the agreement provides for a mechanism to settle any disputes or controversies regarding its operation.

The Honourable Members will be aware that, regardless of the situation under the agreement referred to above, the Directive on Collective Redundancies (3) provides that an employer contemplating collective redundancies shall begin consultations with workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching agreement. The consultations shall cover ways of avoiding the redundancies or reducing the numbers affected and mitigating the consequences.

The transposition and application of the above-mentioned Directive are the responsibility of each Member State. It is a matter for the competent national authorities, in the first place, to ensure correct application of directives and to make provision in national legislation for administrative and judicial appeal. It is the task of the Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaty, to use the means that it considers appropriate, including those set out in Article 226 of the EC Treaty, to ensure, where necessary, that the above-mentioned provisions are complied with. The Commission has no information to indicate that this Directive has been infringed.

---

(1)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(2)  Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(3)  Council Directive 98/59/of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/942 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/942

---

(2004/C 84 E/1041)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1085/04

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Evaluation of plant health products under Directive 91/414/EEC

The evaluation of plant health products under Directive 91/414/EEC (1) is confined to that of the active substances forming part of their composition.

Research carried out by a team headed by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen has proved beyond all doubt that the product Roundup® inhibits the action of aromatase, while for glyphosate, an active substance forming part of the composition of that herbicide, the effect is visibly weaker, Research by the same team on the viability of placenta cells has shown that Roundup® is toxic in small doses and that its toxicity is approximately five times that of glyphosate.

Research into sea-urchins by the cell cycle and development laboratory at the biological station in Roskoff (France) has drawn attention to the action of Roundup® on a cell division regulator, whereas glyphosate, used alone and without the additives of the commercial formula of Roundup®, does not have that effect. It therefore appears clear that glyphosate, an active substance included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, does not have the same properties as Roundup® and that the latter is considerably more dangerous than its active substance.

Another example of pesticides being more toxic than the active substances forming part of their composition is the case of pyrethrinoids. Piperonyl butoxide is generally added to these as a synergist, reinforcing the action of pyrethrinoids by inhibiting an enzyme capable of degrading those active substances. These pesticides therefore visibly have toxicological properties that are different from those of the active substances of which they are composed.

It is more than clear from these two examples that it is a serious methodological error to limit evaluation to the active substances forming part of the composition of plant health products.

What measures does the Commission intend to introduce to put an end to this practice of incomplete evaluation, which can occlude the existence of severe effects on health or ecosystems?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

While unable to comment on the validity of the studies the Honourable Member mentions, we consider his question apposite, but wish to make some qualifications.

It is correct that only the active substance is included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2). Inclusion follows a safety evaluation in line with the requirements set out in Annex II.

However Annex III sets out specific requirements that have to be met for plant protection products, i.e. for the actual product formulas. These have to be given a similar evaluation to that for active substances.

Detailed quantitative and qualitative information has to be provided on the product's composition. The additives, the amounts of these and their technical function must be correctly identified. Additives can in specific cases be made subject to the same rules as those covering active substances.

It is accepted that the formulas authorised at national level can differ in order to take account of intended use and of specific conditions, in particular climatic and geological. But this cannot be allowed to lead to any decline in the high level of safety and protection required in the Union. Accordingly Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC sets out the uniform principles that Member States must apply when evaluating products and deciding whether they can be marketed.

We intend drawing up a proposal for amendment of Directive 91/414/EEC that will be submitted to Parliament and the Council. In preparation for doing so we shall be reconsidering the legal position of the various types of additive, in particular synergists, solvents and diluents, and if appropriate proposing that in future they be subjected to specific requirements.

---

(1)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/944 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/944

---

(2004/C 84 E/1042)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1087/04

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Uncertainties regarding Finland's Natura 2000 network

The Finnish Government has on several occasions forwarded material to the Commission concerning the Natura 2000 network which is to be established. Most recently the government took a decision on this on 22 January 2004. In its decision of that date it stated that Finland's Natura 2000 network comprised 1 806 areas.

According to information provided by the Commission last year, however, Finland's Natura 2000 network was to comprise 1832 areas. Moreover, again according to the Commission, their combined surface area was 1 239 000 hectares greater than decided by the Finnish Government.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, how many Natura 2000 network areas are there in Finland and what is their combined area?

How is it possible that the Commission's information does not correspond to the decisions of the Finnish Government?

What will the Commission do to bring its data into line with the decisions of the Finnish Government?

If the Commission adopts Finland's Natura 2000 network on the basis of contradictory material, will the legally binding decision comprise those areas designated by the Commission in its decision or those areas which the Finnish Government has proposed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is investigating the differences identified with the Finnish authorities and undertakes to ensure that there are no discrepancies prior to the formal Commission decision on the Natura 2000 list for the Boreal region, which is programmed for later in 2004.

In relation to the discrepancies, these may arise from corrections in the data bases and consolidation of some overlaps by the Finnish authorities which have yet to be fully incorporated within the Commission figures.

The Commission will, after verification with the Finnish authorities, inform the Parliament of the latest updated and agreed figures.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/944 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/944

---

(2004/C 84 E/1043)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1093/04

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Staging of football matches between TSV Alemannia Aachen, a German football club, and foreign opponents at the Kerkrade Stadium in the Netherlands

It is highly likely that the German football club TSV Alemannia Aachen will shortly be involved in international matches, for example in the UEFA Cup. Since, however, the Aachen Stadium is not equipped with the 80 % seating capacity prescribed by UEFA for such international fixtures, the club will be obliged to seek an alternative stadium in which to play its matches.

The nearest stadium which meets the UEFA criteria is located just 10 km away in Kerkrade in the Netherlands. On the other hand, the nearest such stadium in Germany is 80 km away. According to UEFA, a German club must play its matches in a stadium in Germany.

| 1. | Is this requirement compatible with the rules governing the single internal market and freedom of movement in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is this requirement compatible with the rules governing the single internal market and freedom of movement in the European Union?

| 2. | Is it lawful for a sporting organisation such as UEFA to re-erect the national barriers which have long since been abolished by European law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it lawful for a sporting organisation such as UEFA to re-erect the national barriers which have long since been abolished by European law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is referring to the rules of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) which oblige German football clubs to play their matches in stadiums in Germany.

The applicable regulation is the Regulation of the UEFA Cup 2003/2004. According to Article 3(6) of the Regulation, a club may play its matches in the territory of another UEFA member association subject to the agreement of the UEFA authorities.

In its decision to reject a complaint in the ‘Mouscron’ case (1), the Commission took the view that the rule to the effect that each club must play its home match at its own ground (‘at home and away from home’ rule) and the exceptions to that rule (which allow for the possibility of playing a match at a ground in a town in another country) was needed to ensure equality between clubs. The Commission argued that by adopting this rule and the exceptions to it, UEFA had exercised its legitimate right of self-regulation as a sports organisation in a manner which could not be challenged by the Treaty's competition rules. This rule and the exceptions to it cannot constitute improper exercise of UEFA's regulatory powers provided these exceptions are applied by UEFA in an objective and non-discriminatory manner.

---

(1)  Case COMP/36851, see IP/99/965.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/945 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/945

---

(2004/C 84 E/1044)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1106/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Vaccination against bluetongue

A vaccine produced in South Africa is currently being used to combat the bovine disease, bluetongue. At the moment the vaccine is not licensed for use in the European Union.

Cattle farmers, in Sicily in particular, are gravely concerned at the potentially huge damage to the livestock population which would result from the planned vaccination campaign to prevent bluetongue. Recent authoritative scientific studies say there is no risk of contagion for human beings or between susceptible animals and point to the low mortality rate because of spontaneous recovery with auto-immunisation and, consequently, the possibility in the near future of using inactivated vaccines with a very low risk of vaccination incidents.

Does the Commission not consider that there is a risk in experimenting with this type of prophylactic whose potential benefits and contra-indications are not yet known and which might cause serious economic damage to livestock farmers?

Could the Commission suggest an alternative to this vaccine?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

As the Commission has already pointed out on several occasions, the decision to vaccinate against bluetongue in Italy was not made without taking the necessary precautions.

The Scientific Committee was consulted, safety checks were carried out on the vaccines used, and the option of vaccinating with the only vaccines available on the market, which are produced by South Africa, was taken only after in-depth discussions in close collaboration with the national authorities concerned.

The vaccines were specially produced by the Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa, taking account of the Italian situation, and they contained only the serotypes present in the regions affected.

With regard to the results of this strategy, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the undisputed success achieved in some of the regions affected and not to bear in mind the hundreds of thousands of animals which were lost, particularly in Sardinia, before the introduction of vaccination led to a drastic reduction in the number of outbreaks and in the losses resulting from the disease on the farms.

As a result of this improvement in the situation, the rules have been gradually adapted and restrictions on the movement of live animals have been eased.

However, the Commission is aware that the situation has become increasingly complex because of the increase in the number of serotypes in circulation and the difficulty in adapting the vaccination strategy to these constant changes in the epidemiological situation.

At this stage the Italian authorities have not informed the Commission of any significant negative effects which could be directly attributed to vaccination, and the considerable damage reported here does not correspond to the information which the Commission has available.

The Commission therefore intends to draw up a list with the Italian authorities of measures which have been taken thus far and to consider, in the light of the conclusions drawn, what changes may prove necessary to the strategy to tackle bluetongue.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/946 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/946

---

(2004/C 84 E/1045)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application

It is said that if an organisation wishes to submit a project under the Media Programme TAO — Audiovisual Festivals, it has to spend around EUR 4 000 on preparing its subsidy application. If the application is accepted, the organisation receives barely EUR 10 000.

Is it not regrettable that the cost of submitting a project application amounts to 40 % of the sum which an organisation ultimately receives?

Is there not an urgent need to simplify the preparation of subsidy applications, and ought not the costs to applicants and the administrative costs to the Commission to be reduced in this way?

Has the Commission already taken any steps to achieve this?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Each Programme managed and implemented by the Commission is subject to the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. The procedures laid down by the Regulation are aimed at ensuring sound financial management of Community resources. These provisions may impose burdens on beneficiaries in terms of procedures and ultimately in terms of the cost effectiveness of Community support. The mid term evaluation of the MEDIA programmes and the public consultation on the new generation of programmes have confirmed the need to simplify procedures for implementation of the programmes. This will be taken into account in the preparation of the new programme for Community action for the audiovisual industry.

The contributions for festivals are relatively small in order to reach the largest number of beneficiaries possible and the largest audience for European works. The Commission does not accept that the application costs would be EUR 4 000 to receive EUR 10 000 or 40 % of the subsidy received, as the Honourable Member states in his question.

It should be noted that a minimum of 40 % of the cost of a project should be funded by sources other than Community support. The co-financing clause does not have any impact on the costs of the application, but is a requirement established by the financial regulations in the implementation of Community programmes.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/947 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/947

---

(2004/C 84 E/1046)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee

On 15 March 2004, the newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that the Advisory Group on Policy on the Waddenzee had advised the Netherlands Government to permit the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural gas from the Waddenzee because there were no ecological grounds for a fresh moratorium on extraction. If any subsidence were to occur as a result, the Advisory Group argues, the drilling could be halted. In the answer to my question to the Commission in 1999 (P-2297/99 (1)) the Commission stressed that naturally the precautionary principle applied. In case of doubt, nothing should be done unless a reason existed based on the overriding public interest. If it could be demonstrated that the extraction would have a significant adverse impact, compensatory measures should be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 was protected. The Commission also mentioned that the term ‘significant effect’ in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive had a broader meaning than ‘irreversible effect’.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that there is a genuine risk of subsidence and that the precautionary principle must apply? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that there is a genuine risk of subsidence and that the precautionary principle must apply?

| 2. | In relation to the anticipated subsidence, is it possible to take compensatory measures in advance? Is interference with the sand and sediment deposits an acceptable disruption of the natural environment in the Waddenzee? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In relation to the anticipated subsidence, is it possible to take compensatory measures in advance? Is interference with the sand and sediment deposits an acceptable disruption of the natural environment in the Waddenzee?

| 3. | In the interests of nature conservation, the Waddenzee ought to be left in peace as a unique natural area. In the light of the Green Paper on the security of energy supply, the EU's growing dependence on gas imports (up to 70 % in 20 or 30 years' time) and rising gas prices, can the Commission confirm or deny that in fact there is an overriding public interest in postponing the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural gas for at least 20 years and reassessing in 2025 whether gas extraction in the Waddenzee is in the public interest? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the interests of nature conservation, the Waddenzee ought to be left in peace as a unique natural area. In the light of the Green Paper on the security of energy supply, the EU's growing dependence on gas imports (up to 70 % in 20 or 30 years' time) and rising gas prices, can the Commission confirm or deny that in fact there is an overriding public interest in postponing the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural gas for at least 20 years and reassessing in 2025 whether gas extraction in the Waddenzee is in the public interest?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/EECof 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and as a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3).
  The Commission is aware of a number of studies indicating that natural gas extraction from sub-surface layers in the Wadden Sea may have direct and indirect negative effects on the Wadden Sea ecosystem, such as a subsidence of the soil, a decreasing area of tidal mud flats and tidal marshes, changes in the sedimentation regime, noise, visual disturbance and pollution risk. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if the impact of the exploitation of another 40 billion cubic metres (m3) of natural gas on the Wadden Sea is likely to be significant or not. Should it appear that significant negative effects are likely to occur, then an appropriate assessment according to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC must be made. The competent national authorities may agree to the further exploitation of natural gas in the Wadden Sea only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. The Commission is of the opinion that in this context the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. The provisions of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC apply in the case of a negative assessment of the project's implications for the site. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/EECof 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and as a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3).

The Commission is aware of a number of studies indicating that natural gas extraction from sub-surface layers in the Wadden Sea may have direct and indirect negative effects on the Wadden Sea ecosystem, such as a subsidence of the soil, a decreasing area of tidal mud flats and tidal marshes, changes in the sedimentation regime, noise, visual disturbance and pollution risk. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if the impact of the exploitation of another 40 billion cubic metres (m3) of natural gas on the Wadden Sea is likely to be significant or not. Should it appear that significant negative effects are likely to occur, then an appropriate assessment according to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC must be made. The competent national authorities may agree to the further exploitation of natural gas in the Wadden Sea only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. The Commission is of the opinion that in this context the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. The provisions of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC apply in the case of a negative assessment of the project's implications for the site.

| 2. | Compensatory measures are intended to compensate for the effects on a habitat affected negatively by a project. The design and feasibility of any compensatory measures for a given project can be considered only after having precisely ascertained the negative impact of that project on a site. Changes in the sedimentation regime in the Wadden Sea are among the potential effects of gas exploitation in that area. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if any expected changes are likely to have a significant effect on the Wadden Sea ecosystem and if so, to make sure that the relevant provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) are applied. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compensatory measures are intended to compensate for the effects on a habitat affected negatively by a project. The design and feasibility of any compensatory measures for a given project can be considered only after having precisely ascertained the negative impact of that project on a site. Changes in the sedimentation regime in the Wadden Sea are among the potential effects of gas exploitation in that area. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if any expected changes are likely to have a significant effect on the Wadden Sea ecosystem and if so, to make sure that the relevant provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) are applied.

| 3. | It is a matter of subsidiarity and therefore completely left to Member States whether the gas demand in a certain Member State will be met by indigenous production or by imported gas. However, Member States are obliged to ensure compliance of their respective policies with Community rules currently in force, such as Directive 92/43/EEC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is a matter of subsidiarity and therefore completely left to Member States whether the gas demand in a certain Member State will be met by indigenous production or by imported gas. However, Member States are obliged to ensure compliance of their respective policies with Community rules currently in force, such as Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 91.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 as amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/948 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/948

---

(2004/C 84 E/1047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income

Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993), lays down that where, with regard to an assessment for the calculation of tax, an average tax rate is applicable, that average rate is to be calculated after account has been taken of the allowances granted pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7 (except for child allowances granted pursuant to paragraph 4, third line, subparagraph (a)). Those allowances may not be deducted a second time when the average tax rate is applied. That provision guarantees that a taxpayer with an income in his country of origin will receive the full allowances, while a taxpayer with foreign income is entitled solely to allowances granted on a pro rate basis.

According to case-law of the Austrian Administrative Court with regard to the legal situation before the publication of BGBl 818/1993, the allowances were not to be taken into account before the calculation of the average tax rate but only in connection with the tax payable after application of the average tax rate to the income subject to national tax. According to the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice on 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (F.W.L. de Groot), the allowances granted in Austria, the State of residence, must be admitted as deductible if no guarantee can be given that the amounts will be deductible in the source State.

What measures is the Commission thinking of taking if the method of calculating the average tax rate, including the application of a progressivity clause and the maximum assessment amount laid down in Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law, proves to infringe Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

A first examination of Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993) led to doubts as regards its compatibility with EU law.

The Commission will therefore contact the Austrian Government for further information and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the compliance of the Austrian tax rule with EU law.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/949 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/949

---

(2004/C 84 E/1048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of Work Discrimination Directive 2000/78/EC in Ireland

In response to my Written Question E-3840/03 (1), the Commission acknowledged receipt of the proposed Irish Equality Bill on 16 January 2004. After consideration of the proposed Bill, I believe that the Irish definition of employee in its Equality Bill appears to be in breach of the Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation Directive 2000/78/EC (2). Chapter 1, Article 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC states:

| | This Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors ... in relation to conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity ... |
| --- | --- |

This Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors ... in relation to conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity ...

Section 3 of Ireland's Equality Bill 2004 fails to meet the requirements of Directive 2000/78/EC because the Bill denies protection under equality legislation to individuals employed in a private residence. Section 3 reads: ‘employee ... does not include a person employed in another person's home for the provision of personal services for persons residing in that home’.

Has the Commission made representations to the Irish Government with regard to the apparent discrepancy that now exists between Irish legislation and EU Directives? What action is the Commission proposing to take to ensure that this matter is addressed?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Although Ireland has sent the Commission a copy of its Equality Bill, as far as the Commission is aware, this has not yet entered into force, and Ireland has therefore not yet transposed Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. As mentioned in the reply to the Honourable Member's previous question E-3840/03, infringement proceedings have been launched against Ireland because of this failure.

The Commission has started to examine in detail the legislation of those Member States which have transposed Directive 2000/78/EC into their national law, to check that the Directive has been properly transposed. Where the Commission is not satisfied that the Directive has been correctly transposed into national law, infringement procedures will be launched.

The Commission cannot take formal action against a Member State while its legislation is still in draft form. The points raised by the Honourable Member will be part of the examination of the Irish legislation for conformity with the Directive.

---

(1)  See page 741.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/950 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/950

---

(2004/C 84 E/1049)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1116/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Sex education for children and young people in the enlarging Union

Does the Commission agree that the EU ought to respect its citizens' rights regarding reproduction, equality of the sexes, the right to live a safe life protected from any violence, including violence within the family and in sexual relations, the right of access to proper health care and the right to be informed about sexually transmitted diseases?

Does the Commission agree that these rights are based on and enshrined in Community law and international agreements?

Does the Commission believe, as I do, that, in order to be able to exercise these rights in full, citizens should be able to obtain good and objective information about sex at a sufficiently early stage in their lives in the form of information material, programmes and education projects?

I myself believe that if information is provided in advance, objectively and with the aim of protecting people, this will promote these objectives as children and young people progress through adolescence to adulthood. What, therefore, will the Commission do for the benefit of young people in the enlarging Union to ensure a high standard of sex education for all?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The European Union was founded on the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. All Member States have signed various human rights treaties both at the United Nations level and at the Council of Europe level. Moreover, there is ample EU legislation that addresses many of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. All Member States also have a strong committment to human rights in their constitutions or constitutional instruments. Many of these legal instruments, from a national level to the international level, also address in one form or another rights with regard to family planning, access to health care, preventive measures against sexually transmitted diseases and freedom from violence in all forms. In order for citizens to be able to exercise those rights, it is important that they can have access to information about these issues.

At European Union level, one major tool to promote sexual education is the Public Health Action Programme (2003-2008) (1). Sexual health, including sexual education, is an important part of the health determinants strand of this programme. Under the 2003 call for proposals of this programme, a project entitled ‘European partnership to promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young people’, coordinated by the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, was selected for funding. This issue is again part of the priorities under the 2004 work plan, which reads:

| | Taking account of information from the health monitoring system, develop health promotion strategies and define best practices to address sexual education (teenage pregnancy, family planning) and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, including consideration of approaches in school setting and those targeting specific groups. |
| --- | --- |

Taking account of information from the health monitoring system, develop health promotion strategies and define best practices to address sexual education (teenage pregnancy, family planning) and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, including consideration of approaches in school setting and those targeting specific groups.

---

(1)  Decision No 1786/2002/Ec of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/951 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/951

---

(2004/C 84 E/1050)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1127/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Drilling for gas a significant threat to the Waddenzee

The Meijer Commission set up by the Netherlands Government (September 2003) claims that if natural gas were to be extracted from under the Dutch Waddenzee this would not have any significant impact on the natural environment there. However, experience suggests otherwise: gas extraction (since 1986) on Eastern Ameland has caused the land there to subside at a rate of 1,5 cm per annum. It is the same picture with natural gas extraction in the Province of Groningen, where the land has subsided by 30, 40 and in some cases as much as 50 cm in relation to its level when gas extraction began some 35 years ago. (Source: Energieverslag Nederland [Netherlands Energy Report], 1998).

In addition, the rising sea level poses a serious threat to the unique natural environment of the Waddenzee and Frisian Islands. Recent calculations indicate that 10-20 % (with moderate or extreme climate change) will be lost in the next 50 years. In some places, the loss is likely to be as much as 30-40 %. Any fresh gas drilling in the Waddenzee would create a severe additional threat.

| 1. | Drilling for gas could be a significant threat to the natural environment in the Waddenzee. There is a danger that the mudflats and saltmarshes will be destroyed as a result of the anticipated subsidence of the bed of the Waddenzee due to fresh gas drilling. This will not be significant over a period of five years, during which the seabed might subside by five cm, but in the medium term it will be. The European directives on wild birds and habitats say nothing about the time factor. Is the conclusion justified that a threat which will only become significant after a number of years qualifies as a significant threat just as much as one which has an immediate significant impact on nature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Drilling for gas could be a significant threat to the natural environment in the Waddenzee. There is a danger that the mudflats and saltmarshes will be destroyed as a result of the anticipated subsidence of the bed of the Waddenzee due to fresh gas drilling. This will not be significant over a period of five years, during which the seabed might subside by five cm, but in the medium term it will be. The European directives on wild birds and habitats say nothing about the time factor. Is the conclusion justified that a threat which will only become significant after a number of years qualifies as a significant threat just as much as one which has an immediate significant impact on nature?

| 2. | In the interests of the unique natural assets of the Waddenzee, the most important natural area in the Netherlands, I would ask the Commission to consider this matter seriously and to draw attention to possible violations of EU law during the regular consultations with the Netherlands Government on the implementation of the directives on wild birds and habitats. Will the Commission for once not wait until the Netherlands Government takes a decision on extracting gas from under the Waddenzee but immediately express a view on a possible significant breach of the EU's nature conservancy legislation due to subsidence of the seabed/land which would be caused by any drilling for gas? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the interests of the unique natural assets of the Waddenzee, the most important natural area in the Netherlands, I would ask the Commission to consider this matter seriously and to draw attention to possible violations of EU law during the regular consultations with the Netherlands Government on the implementation of the directives on wild birds and habitats. Will the Commission for once not wait until the Netherlands Government takes a decision on extracting gas from under the Waddenzee but immediately express a view on a possible significant breach of the EU's nature conservancy legislation due to subsidence of the seabed/land which would be caused by any drilling for gas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and as a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

| 1. | The Honourable Member rightly indicates that neither Directive 79/409/EEC nor Directive 92/43/EEC provide for a time factor in relation to the notion of significant effects in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, if an assessment indicates the existence of certain effects of a plan or project, these effects must be considered as part of the assessment process whatever their time scale. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member rightly indicates that neither Directive 79/409/EEC nor Directive 92/43/EEC provide for a time factor in relation to the notion of significant effects in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, if an assessment indicates the existence of certain effects of a plan or project, these effects must be considered as part of the assessment process whatever their time scale.

| 2. | The Commission agrees that there are potential impacts of the drilling of gas in the Wadden Sea on the protected area involved and would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer it provided to written question P-1108/04 by Mrs Corbey (3).
  The Commission will take the initiative to remind the Dutch authorities of their obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC in this respect. The Commission will do this in a letter addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission agrees that there are potential impacts of the drilling of gas in the Wadden Sea on the protected area involved and would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer it provided to written question P-1108/04 by Mrs Corbey (3).

The Commission will take the initiative to remind the Dutch authorities of their obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC in this respect. The Commission will do this in a letter addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 as amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3)  See page 947.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/952 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/952

---

(2004/C 84 E/1051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Subject:   Restrictions on the right to vote in European elections in Northern Ireland that have so far disenfranchised 16,5 % of the population because of a complicated system of annual individual voter registration

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that rules in the United States under which people who are entitled to vote cannot do so unless they register to vote on various occasions have effectively disenfranchised a large number of people, primarily those who are on low incomes, less well-educated, or who have a disability or are less familiar with administrative formalities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that rules in the United States under which people who are entitled to vote cannot do so unless they register to vote on various occasions have effectively disenfranchised a large number of people, primarily those who are on low incomes, less well-educated, or who have a disability or are less familiar with administrative formalities?

| 2. | Does the Commission know that the electoral law in Northern Ireland was changed in May 2002 so that, unlike the rules in other parts of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, individual voters are required to re-register before each election, submitting photographs and national insurance documents, and that this has resulted in the numbers on the electoral roll dwindling every year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission know that the electoral law in Northern Ireland was changed in May 2002 so that, unlike the rules in other parts of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, individual voters are required to re-register before each election, submitting photographs and national insurance documents, and that this has resulted in the numbers on the electoral roll dwindling every year?

| 3. | Does the Commission realise that it is now evident that unless the rules are soon changed soon 211 000 people who are entitled to vote, or 16,5 % of the population of Northern Ireland, will not be able to take part in the forthcoming European Parliament elections? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission realise that it is now evident that unless the rules are soon changed soon 211 000 people who are entitled to vote, or 16,5 % of the population of Northern Ireland, will not be able to take part in the forthcoming European Parliament elections?

| 4. | Does the Commission not agree that if the new restrictions are aimed at combating fraud this aim can best be achieved by means of accurate population registers, accurate registration of anyone who is temporarily deprived of the right to vote as a result of a court judgment, with speedy updating of electoral registers and an effective system of checks at polling stations, so that anyone who is entitled to vote can decide whether or not to go to the polls up until the day of the election? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission not agree that if the new restrictions are aimed at combating fraud this aim can best be achieved by means of accurate population registers, accurate registration of anyone who is temporarily deprived of the right to vote as a result of a court judgment, with speedy updating of electoral registers and an effective system of checks at polling stations, so that anyone who is entitled to vote can decide whether or not to go to the polls up until the day of the election?

| 5. | Does the Commission have any means, under the agreements between EU Member States concerning elections to the European Parliament which have been in force since 1979 or on any other grounds, of ensuring that restrictions on the right to vote in Northern Ireland will in any case not apply to the next European elections in June? Is it prepared to use the means at its disposal? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission have any means, under the agreements between EU Member States concerning elections to the European Parliament which have been in force since 1979 or on any other grounds, of ensuring that restrictions on the right to vote in Northern Ireland will in any case not apply to the next European elections in June? Is it prepared to use the means at its disposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Electoral registration is part of electoral procedures, the regulation of which falls under the responsibility of the Member States. Electoral procedures for national or local elections are thus covered by national legislation. This is also confirmed regarding elections to the Parliament in Article 8 of the 1976 Act (1) as amended by Council Decision 2002/772/EC (2) which provides that electoral procedure shall be governed in each Member State by its national provisions. In conclusion, electoral procedures are not harmonised by Community law, and the Member States are not obliged to inform the Commission about changes in their electoral laws.

---

(1)  Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, OJ L 278, 8.10.1976.

(2)  Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, OJ L 283, 21.10.2002.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/952 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/952

---

(2004/C 84 E/1052)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1151/04

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Commissioning medical treatment abroad

Does the Commission regard medical practitioners' assessments of a patient's clinical need (and thus the determination of reasonable waiting time before a patient can seek treatment abroad) to be potentially compromised by their position in health institutions with limited resources and competing demands on those resources?

According to the ruling by the European Court of Justice in the case of Geraets-Smits v. Stichting Ziekenfonds (Case C-l57/99), a patient can be denied medical treatment abroad only if ‘the patient can receive the same or equally effective treatment without undue delay from an establishment with which his sickness insurance has contractual arrangements.’

Considering that ‘undue delay’ is determined by a patient's clinical need, what steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the assessment of a patient's need is not compromised by the financial considerations of the competent institutions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In some Member States, patients are facing sometimes long waiting periods before getting medical treatment which may prejudice their state of health.

The Court in its judgement in Smits and Peerboom (1) and in Muller-Fauré-van Riet (2) indicated that authorisation to receive treatment in another Member State may be refused only if treatment which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be obtained without undue delay in the Member State of registration of the patient. The Court put the patient's medical situation first in indicating that in considering the condition of undue delay, ‘the national authorities are required to have regard to all circumstances of each specific case and take due account not only of the patient's medical condition at the time when authorisation is sought and where appropriate, of the degree of pain and the nature of the patient's disability which might, for example, make it impossible or extremely difficult for him to carry out a professional activity, but also of his medical history’ (Müller-Fauré/van Riet, C-385/99, paragraph 90). Member States are therefore required to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the circumstances surrounding the medical situation of the patient concerned and cannot simply refer to predefined waiting times to refuse an authorisation for hospital treatment abroad.

The Commission would wish to inform the Honourable Member that in order to improve legal certainty for the sake of patients who benefit as recipients from the free movement of services, and for health professionals and managers of social security systems, it has recently adopted a proposal for a Directive on Services in the Internal Market (3) that clarifies the conditions under which Member States shall ensure that authorisation by their social security system is given for the assumption of the costs of hospital care provided in another Member State. In particular, it specifies that such authorisation cannot be refused where the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of affiliation and where such treatment cannot be given to the patient within a time frame which is medically acceptable in the light of the patient's current state of health and the probable course of the illness.

This will allow medical practitioners to ensure that, where medically necessary, their patients can benefit from the principles of the Internal Market. It will also assist Member States to make more efficient use of existing health care infrastructures within the Union.

---

(1)  Smits and Peerbooms judgement, Case C-157/99 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p. I-05473.

(2)  Müller-Fauré and van Riet judgement, Case C-385/99 of 13.050 03, ECR 2003 p. I-04509.

(3)  COM(2004) 2 final.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/953 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/953

---

(2004/C 84 E/1053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1167/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject:   Regulation No 1954/2003: fishing activity in the Azores EEZ

The Commission stated in its answer to my written question P-0455/04 (1) of 11 March 2004 on Regulation No 1954/2003 (2) and fishing by Spanish vessels between the 100-mile and 200-mile limits of the Azores Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), basing its reply on Article 16 of the regulation, that the regulation came into force on 14 November 2003, a fact which no-one has questioned or is questioning.

Nonetheless, a moratorium has in fact been imposed with regard to the continued applicability on a transitional basis of Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 (3) and 2027/95 (4), given that Article 15 of the new Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 states that those other regulations from 1995 shall be repealed only with effect from 1 August 2004.

As the new regime is materially incompatible with that deriving from the two older regulations, it has to be concluded, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 itself, that:

| (1) | up to 1 August 2004 the regime in force is still that of Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 and 2027/95, since they are repealed only from that date; and |
| --- | --- |

(1)

up to 1 August 2004 the regime in force is still that of Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 and 2027/95, since they are repealed only from that date; and

| (2) | the new regime will only come properly into force from that same date. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the new regime will only come properly into force from that same date.

The Commission:

| — | can it explain why it intends to bring forward to 14 November 2003 the starting-date for implementing the new regime for access to certain areas and stocks, when Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 states quite explicitly and with all clarity that until 1 August 2004 the regime of the 1995 regulations will still be in force and that those regulations are repealed only from that date? |
| --- | --- |

—

can it explain why it intends to bring forward to 14 November 2003 the starting-date for implementing the new regime for access to certain areas and stocks, when Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 states quite explicitly and with all clarity that until 1 August 2004 the regime of the 1995 regulations will still be in force and that those regulations are repealed only from that date?

| — | does it in fact believe that the two regimes are compatible and can be applied simultaneously? If so, how? How can there be any compatibility between rules stating respectively that fishing may still be limited and that there are no restrictions, for the same waters? On the basis of what interpretation, scope and legal basis could this be the case? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it in fact believe that the two regimes are compatible and can be applied simultaneously? If so, how? How can there be any compatibility between rules stating respectively that fishing may still be limited and that there are no restrictions, for the same waters? On the basis of what interpretation, scope and legal basis could this be the case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission reaffirms its position to the Honourable Member as regards Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the conditions applicable to fishing activities in the waters around the Azores, which is as follows:

| — | Article 5 of that Regulation contains a scheme for limiting fishing effort in these waters. That provision is different from the scheme applicable under Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 which restricts access to all waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal and Spain to vessels flying the flag of the respective Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5 of that Regulation contains a scheme for limiting fishing effort in these waters. That provision is different from the scheme applicable under Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 which restricts access to all waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal and Spain to vessels flying the flag of the respective Member State.

| — | Confusion may have arisen as to the applicability of the starting date as a result of the fact that Article 15 of that Regulation does not repeal the previous Regulations until the date of entry into force of the implementing Regulation, or on 1 August 2004 at the latest. |
| --- | --- |

—

Confusion may have arisen as to the applicability of the starting date as a result of the fact that Article 15 of that Regulation does not repeal the previous Regulations until the date of entry into force of the implementing Regulation, or on 1 August 2004 at the latest.

| — | However, this provision does not affect the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 and in particular Article 5 thereof. It is often the case that a particular question is governed by more than one legal provision. Where these conflict, the most recent rule applies. This is the case with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003. That Article gives less extensive exclusivity to Spanish and Portuguese vessels than the previous scheme, which has not yet been formally repealed. In this case the most recent rule, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, takes precedence. |
| --- | --- |

—

However, this provision does not affect the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 and in particular Article 5 thereof. It is often the case that a particular question is governed by more than one legal provision. Where these conflict, the most recent rule applies. This is the case with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003. That Article gives less extensive exclusivity to Spanish and Portuguese vessels than the previous scheme, which has not yet been formally repealed. In this case the most recent rule, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, takes precedence.

---

(1)  See page 403.

(2)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5.

(4)  OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/955 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/955

---

(2004/C 84 E/1054)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1170/04

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Subject:   Construction of the Amoreiras tunnel in Lisbon

On 29 May 2002 the Lisbon Municipal Chamber (LMC) approved the call to tender for the contract to alter the level of the streets Avenida Duarte Pacheco, Rua Joaquim António de Aguiar and Avenida Fontes Pereira de Melo, the basic project for which stipulated that:

| — | the building work would overlap with other infrastructure and those submitting tenders should offer solutions to divert such infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the building work would overlap with other infrastructure and those submitting tenders should offer solutions to divert such infrastructure;

| — | the competing contractors should submit the proposed solutions worked out on the basis of a preliminary study, taking into consideration all the specialised tasks involved, including the diversion of infrastructure occupying the sub-soil; |
| --- | --- |

—

the competing contractors should submit the proposed solutions worked out on the basis of a preliminary study, taking into consideration all the specialised tasks involved, including the diversion of infrastructure occupying the sub-soil;

| — | the contract should include all the work carried out to meet all the objectives entailed in the complete execution of the project, including all the diversions carried out by sub-contractors. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contract should include all the work carried out to meet all the objectives entailed in the complete execution of the project, including all the diversions carried out by sub-contractors.

On 14 March 2003 the LMC did not award the contract to any of the candidates, since they all quoted a higher total price, and it decreed that the contract should be awarded directly. Recourse to this method (when no suitable proposals are received in response to a public tendering procedure) must not entail any deviation from the programme and specifications sheet on which the competition was based. When examining the proposals in this context the Commission decided that the specifications for the repositioning of infrastructre could not be considered as essential elements of the contract. On 22 May 2003 the LMC awarded the contract directly to the group consisting of the firms Empresas Construcções do Tâmega S.a. and CME — Constucções e Manutenção Electromecânica S.A., which in their proposal removed essential construction tasks from the context of the contract, with a substantial impact on infrastructure.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| — | whether the direct award procedure under the above-mentioned terms constitutes an infringement of Article 7(3)(a) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) and the principle of free competition, |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the direct award procedure under the above-mentioned terms constitutes an infringement of Article 7(3)(a) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) and the principle of free competition,

| — | whether the fact that the proposal did not correspond to the basic project and specifications sheet and that the LMC took into consideration and initiated the negotiations on this basis to the prejudice of third parties acting in good faith, does not violate the principle of equal treatment inherent in the application of Community law? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the fact that the proposal did not correspond to the basic project and specifications sheet and that the LMC took into consideration and initiated the negotiations on this basis to the prejudice of third parties acting in good faith, does not violate the principle of equal treatment inherent in the application of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under Community directives, all contracts for pecuniary interest concluded between a contracting authority or contracting entity and an economic operator for the execution of works, the building of a structure, the provision of services or the supply of goods, are known as public works, services, or supply contracts. If the value of the contract exceeds a threshold set by the directives, the award of such contracts should comply with the provisions of the Community directives which set detailed rules, particularly as regards disclosure or participation by enterprises.

The use of a negotiated procedure is only permitted in certain exceptional cases laid down by the public contract directives, insofar as this procedure derogates from the common rules set out in the directives.

According to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, it is for the party placing reliance on this exception to prove that the circumstances justifying the derogation do in fact exist (see, for public works contracts, the judgment of 10 March 1987, Commission v. Italy, Case 199/85).

The Commission does not, at present, possess sufficient information to be able to determine whether the rules of Directive 93/37/EEC, and more specifically Article 7 (3)(a) thereof, have been observed in the award procedure for the contract in question.

On the basis of the information provided in the Written Question, the Commission will contact the Portuguese authorities to obtain information from them that will enable it to conduct a detailed examination of this case.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

---

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/956 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/956

---

(2004/C 84 E/1055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

| 1. | With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:






  (a) | no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common Service for External Relations manual of procedures — paragraph 10 and Annex — applicable at the time of the events in question); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:

(a)

no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common Service for External Relations manual of procedures — paragraph 10 and Annex — applicable at the time of the events in question);

| (b) | no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and submitted tenders below the level of available resources; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and submitted tenders below the level of available resources;

| (c) | the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu?

| 2. | Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the institutes covered by the project)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the institutes covered by the project)?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | (a) | Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 was financed under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF). The main legal base is Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 adopting the general regulations, general conditions and procedural rules on conciliation and arbitration for works, supply and service contracts financed by the EDF and concerning their application (1).
  The EUR 200 000 limit is based on Decision No 2/2002 of 7 October 2002, which covers the implementation of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement. It applies to service contracts under the 9th EDF and not contracts under the 8th EDF.
  In accordance with Article 7.5 of Annex I to Decision No 3/1990 adopting the General Regulations for Service, Supply and Works, a shortlist of companies was established in order to carry out a restricted tender procedure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 was financed under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF). The main legal base is Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 adopting the general regulations, general conditions and procedural rules on conciliation and arbitration for works, supply and service contracts financed by the EDF and concerning their application (1).

The EUR 200 000 limit is based on Decision No 2/2002 of 7 October 2002, which covers the implementation of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement. It applies to service contracts under the 9th EDF and not contracts under the 8th EDF.

In accordance with Article 7.5 of Annex I to Decision No 3/1990 adopting the General Regulations for Service, Supply and Works, a shortlist of companies was established in order to carry out a restricted tender procedure.

| (b) | It was decided, in order to maximise the competition, not to communicate the maximum budget available. This explains why the bids submitted were above the maximum limit and why this did not raise any suspicion. Since the offers made by companies are based on market prices, it is clear that prices increased between 1999, year of the initial procedure and 2002, year of the procedure in question. This could explain why companies that had already participated in the 1999 tendering procedure submitted higher financial offers in 2002. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

It was decided, in order to maximise the competition, not to communicate the maximum budget available. This explains why the bids submitted were above the maximum limit and why this did not raise any suspicion. Since the offers made by companies are based on market prices, it is clear that prices increased between 1999, year of the initial procedure and 2002, year of the procedure in question. This could explain why companies that had already participated in the 1999 tendering procedure submitted higher financial offers in 2002.

| (c) | The procedure followed is compatible with the Decision No 3/1990 governing the 8th EDF, Article 35. Article 12(2) refers to the Decision No 2/2002 governing the implementation of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement. It applies to the 9th EDF and not the 8th EDF. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The procedure followed is compatible with the Decision No 3/1990 governing the 8th EDF, Article 35. Article 12(2) refers to the Decision No 2/2002 governing the implementation of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement. It applies to the 9th EDF and not the 8th EDF.

| 2. | The Commission has requested the corresponding documentation from the Delegation in Papua New Guinea in order to be able to formulate a reply on this point which will be communicated as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has requested the corresponding documentation from the Delegation in Papua New Guinea in order to be able to formulate a reply on this point which will be communicated as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 382, 31.12.1990.

---